Case 3303850/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Mortimer, lay representative For the v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 3303850/2019
- Decision date
- 31 July 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Manley Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms K Mortimer, lay representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr RA Werner, challenged the withdrawal of a conditional offer for the Director role at the Cambridge Centre of Housing and Planning Research. The judgment records that the case included direct discrimination allegations based on German nationality, Christianity, and the belief that "big banks are a cancer on society", and also notes that the unfair dismissal claim had already been rejected because he was never an employee of the respondent.
At this preliminary hearing the claimant withdrew the nationality claim, which the tribunal dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal then considered whether the remaining discrimination claims should be struck out or made subject to a deposit order. Applying s.10 Equality Act 2010 and Grainger plc v Nicholson, it held that the statement "big banks are a cancer on society" could amount to a philosophical belief: it was genuinely held, more than a present-opinion viewpoint, weighty and substantial, and sufficiently cogent, serious, cohesive and important to be capable of protection.
The tribunal therefore refused to strike out the remaining religion/belief discrimination claims and made no deposit order, saying it could not yet decide the prospects of success without evidence from the decision-maker and further context for the "unorthodox views" email. It refused the late amendment to add victimisation because the proposed claim was out of time, inadequately explained, and would prejudice the respondent; the matter was then listed for a four-day liability-only hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that this unfair dismissal claim had been rejected because the claimant was never an employee of the respondent. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant withdrew the German nationality discrimination claim at the hearing, and the tribunal dismissed it on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Preliminary hearing only: the tribunal held that the statement "big banks are a cancer on society" could amount to a philosophical belief under s.10 Equality Act 2010, and it refused to strike out the remaining religion/belief discrimination claims or make a deposit order. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | The application to amend to add victimisation was refused because it was out of time, no adequate explanation was given, and the respondent would be prejudiced; the amendment was not allowed. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.10 Equality Act 2010
- Grainger plc v Nicholson
- Gray v Mulberry Company (Design Clothes) Ltd
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Mechkarov v Citibank NV
- Eszias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Igen v Wong
- Reynolds v CLFIS UK Ltd
- ABN Amro Management Services v Hogben
- Patel v Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd
- British Gas Services Ltd v Basra
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
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.