Case 3304497/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Sivakumar v Overstone Park School Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304497/2024
- Decision date
- 23 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davey Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss R Sivakumar
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in public on 12 September 2025, Employment Judge Davey considered the respondents' application to strike out six s13 Equality Act 2010 discrimination complaints, a complaint about failure to provide a s1 statement of particulars of employment, and a complaint about itemised pay statements. Applying Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and the authorities in Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd, Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd, Cox v Adecco and ors, and Anyanwu and anor v South Bank Student Union and anor, the tribunal took the claimant's case at its highest, noted that the discrimination complaints were disputed and evidence-sensitive, and refused strike out of the discrimination complaints and the s1 particulars complaint.
The tribunal said three of the six discrimination complaints, identified as issues 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.6, had little reasonable prospect of success and gave separate reasons in a deposit order, but they were not struck out in this judgment. The itemised pay statements complaint, concerning June 2023 and July 2023, was struck out because it was presented out of time: the last statement should have been issued at the end of July 2023, ACAS was not contacted until 8 March 2024, and the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the claim was not brought within time and it was reasonably practicable to present it earlier.
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 | One of the six s13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination complaints. Strike-out was refused at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | One of the six s13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination complaints. Strike-out was refused at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | One of the six s13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination complaints. Strike-out was refused at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | One of the six s13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination complaints. Strike-out was refused at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | One of the six s13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination complaints. Strike-out was refused at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | One of the six s13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination complaints, identified in the judgment as issue 2.2.6. Strike-out was refused at this preliminary hearing, and the judge said it had little reasonable prospect of success in a separate deposit order. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd EAT 0098/16
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd EAT 0119/18
- Cox v Adecco and ors [2021] ICR 1307
- Anyanwu and anor v South Bank Student Union and anor 2001 ICR 391
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.