Case 3205667/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bedeau v Mr S Murrells — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205667/2021
- Decision date
- 5 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Bedeau
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was the sixth claim arising from the same underlying dispute. It was brought solely against Mr S Murrells, the CEO of Co-op, after earlier claims against Co-op itself. At the hearing on 15 February 2022, Employment Judge Russell considered strike out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and applied the usual caution described in the authorities cited in the reasons.
The Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, and holiday pay claims because those causes of action could not succeed against Mr Murrells individually. The judgment records that claims of unfair dismissal and wage-related deductions must be brought against the employer, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine those claims against this respondent.
The race discrimination claim was also struck out. The Tribunal accepted that the Equality Act 2010 can permit claims against individual employees or those who aid, instruct, cause or induce discrimination, but found that the pleaded case against Mr Murrells remained too vague to identify a viable factual basis. Even after the claimant was given an opportunity to explain the allegations in more detail, the Tribunal found the case depended on assumptions that Mr Mills-White must have been acting unlawfully and that Mr Murrells, as CEO, must therefore have authorised discrimination.
Applying the authorities it cited, including Ukegheson v Haringey Borough Council, Cox v Adecco, Hoppe v HMRC, and Miles v Gilbank, the Tribunal concluded that there were no facts giving any reasonable prospect of proving that Mr Murrells had aided or instructed any contravention of the Equality Act 2010. All claims against Mr Murrells were therefore struck out, and the judgment records that the claims against Co-op would proceed separately.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim against this individual respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out because there is no liability for unauthorised deduction claims against an individual employee or officer; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Struck out because holiday pay claims could not be brought against Mr Murrells personally and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The Tribunal found the particulars against Mr Murrells remained hopelessly vague, and that even taken at its highest there were no facts showing that he aided, instructed, or authorised unlawful race discrimination. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Ukegheson v Haringey Borough Council
- Cox v Adecco
- Hoppe v HMRC
- Miles v Gilbank
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.