Case 3300062/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Johnson v London Borough of Barnet & Others RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2026
- Case reference
- 3300062/2024
- Decision date
- 13 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil Appearances
- Venue
- London South Via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a Reserved Judgment from a Public Preliminary Hearing before Employment Judge Anderson (sitting alone) on 24 February 2025, with deliberations in chambers on 25 and 26 February 2025, covering seven joined case numbers brought by Mr J Johnson against the London Borough of Barnet and various individual respondents. The Claimant had been employed from July 2023 as a Residential Homes Manager in a children's home and was dismissed on 14 February 2024. The hearing was listed to determine whether the Claimant was a disabled person under s.6 Equality Act 2010, whether any claim should be struck out under Rule 38, and whether deposit orders should be made under Rule 40.
The Tribunal struck out the disability discrimination claims (indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments) under Rule 38(1)(b) and Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with case management orders relating to disclosure and the provision of a disability impact statement. Applications for strike out under Rule 38(1)(a) succeeded in part: specific allegations of whistleblowing detriment (para 4.1.11), direct sex discrimination (para 7.2.11), all pleaded indirect sex discrimination claims (paras 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3), harassment related to sex (para 10.1.11), and victimisation (para 11.2.11) were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. All other strike out applications were refused.
The Tribunal made deposit orders totalling £1,800 in respect of surviving allegations, including £360 for a s.103A whistleblowing allegation and further sums for surviving whistleblowing detriment, sex discrimination and victimisation allegations. The Judge declined to make 73 individual deposit orders at around £20 each, considering totality and the overriding objective. Case number 3300471/2024 was joined with the other cases, and a further Public Preliminary Hearing was directed to address consequential strike out questions and case management.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) and Rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 (preliminary hearing judgment). | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment allegation at para 4.1.11 of the list of issues struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. Other whistleblowing allegations survived; a deposit order of £360 was made in relation to the s.103A allegation and £1,000 in respect of other surviving whistleblowing detriment allegations. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination at para 7.2.11 and all indirect sex discrimination claims at paras 8.1.1, 8.1.2 and 8.1.3 struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex at para 10.1.11 of the list of issues struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation allegation at para 11.2.11 struck out under Rule 38(1)(a). Surviving victimisation allegations subject to a deposit order of £360. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 40 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.