Case 3303093/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and 9 others — 2020

Case reference: 3303093/2021
Decision date: 2 August 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Maxwell Appearances

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

11 named

Claimant

Mr J Logo

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal ordered that Joerg Mertens be struck out as a respondent because there was no complaint against him in the claimant's claim.

The claimant's indirect race discrimination claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claims of harassment and direct race discrimination with respect to pay were also struck out insofar as they related to any comparator other than Mr Carew-Gibbs or Mr Pugh.

The Tribunal further struck out the claimant's harassment and direct race discrimination claims against the second, third, fifth, sixth, eighth and ninth respondents because it did not have jurisdiction under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The indirect race discrimination claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The direct race discrimination claim with respect to pay was struck out insofar as it related to any comparator other than Mr Carew-Gibbs or Mr Pugh, and direct race discrimination claims against the second, third, fifth, sixth, eighth and ninth respondents were struck out for lack of jurisdiction under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010.	Struck out	Race	—
Harassment	The harassment claim with respect to pay was struck out insofar as it related to any comparator other than Mr Carew-Gibbs or Mr Pugh, and harassment claims against the second, third, fifth, sixth, eighth and ninth respondents were struck out for lack of jurisdiction under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010.	Struck out	Race	—
Other	Joerg Mertens was struck out as a respondent because there was no complaint against him in the claimant's claim.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.