Case 3302159/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Parmar v Internorm Windows UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302159/2023
- Decision date
- 21 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richard Wood
- Venue
- In Public via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Parmar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public CVP hearing on 5 February 2024, Employment Judge Richard Wood struck out all claims brought by Mr S Parmar against Internorm Windows UK Limited under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal held that the sex discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 had no reasonable prospect of success, and reached the same conclusion on the race discrimination claim under section 13.
The tribunal also struck out the claim for automatically unfair dismissal, and for the avoidance of doubt any remaining unfair dismissal claim, again on the basis that each had no reasonable prospect of success. No liability findings or remedy awards were made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 struck out under rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 struck out under rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim for automatically unfair dismissal struck out under rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Any remaining claim for unfair dismissal struck out under rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.