Case 3300186/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the First v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3300186/2020
- Decision date
- 22 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heal Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had previously brought case 3300388/2019 against the GMB and London Borough of Enfield, then withdrew it; Employment Judge Lewis dismissed that claim on 22 August 2019. In this later claim, presented on 9 January 2020, the claimant repeated race and disability discrimination allegations about the 10 October 2018 events and added complaints said to arise after 10 January 2019, together with breach of contract and constructive unfair dismissal.
The tribunal held that the race and disability discrimination complaints concerning events on or before 9 January 2019 were barred by cause of action estoppel because they were the same or substantially the same as the earlier withdrawn claim and could have been brought then. It also struck out the breach of contract complaint against the GMB because a breach of contract claim cannot be brought against a non-employer, and struck out all complaints of defamation as outside tribunal jurisdiction. The tribunal refused the claimant's request to postpone the hearing and rejected his bias concerns, referring to Porter v Magill.
The tribunal held that complaints based on events between 10 January 2019 and termination were not barred because they could not have been included in the first claim. It held that those later race and disability discrimination complaints against both respondents, together with the breach of contract complaint against the second respondent, were not struck out and would be dealt with at the hearing listed for 21 August 2020, subject to unresolved time-limit and ACAS-certificate issues. The dismissal point was rejected because the claimant did not have two years' service, and the judgment noted that the termination date was disputed as 3 or 22 February 2019.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination complaints against both respondents were dismissed insofar as they related to events on or before 9 January 2019; the tribunal held those matters were barred by cause of action estoppel. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Disability discrimination complaints against both respondents were dismissed insofar as they related to events on or before 9 January 2019; the tribunal held those matters were barred by cause of action estoppel. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract complaint against the first respondent (GMB) was struck out because the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear a breach of contract claim not made against an employer. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | All complaints of defamation were struck out as outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination complaints against both respondents relating to matters arising between 10 January 2019 and the date of termination were not struck out and were left to be determined at the hearing listed for 21 August 2020, subject to time-limit and ACAS-certificate issues. | Other |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Porter v Magill
- cause of action estoppel
- Barber v Staffordshire County Council
- Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd
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.