Case 3305115/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person (by CVP) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305115/2020
- Decision date
- 25 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
- Venue
- Watford in person and
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person (by CVP) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent on 1 October 2018 and resigned on 9 December 2019, with an effective date of termination of 1 March 2020. She presented a claim form on 28 May 2020 alleging disability and race discrimination and a claim for other payments. The matter came before Employment Judge Alliott sitting alone at a remote preliminary hearing on 16 August 2021, with the claimant appearing in person by CVP and the respondent represented by counsel.
The claimant confirmed that she wished to withdraw her disability discrimination claim, which the tribunal dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal also struck out the breach of contract claim. The claimant said she had worked her contractual notice and had been paid, but had valued the claim at £9,000 on the basis that she should have been job-evaluated, promoted, and placed in a higher salary band. The judge found there was no concluded contract of employment at the higher rate of pay and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal struck out the race discrimination allegations concerning Mr Ernest Anyadioha and Mr Francis Creppy, treating them as having no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that the relevant complaints were contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the claimant's further information.
A separate section of the further information referred to whistleblowing detriment, but the judge held that the original claim form did not contain such a claim. The claimant was told that she would need to apply to amend if she wished to pursue it, and the judge referred to section 43B of the Employment Rights Act. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant confirmed at the preliminary hearing that she wished to withdraw the disability discrimination claim; the tribunal dismissed it upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant valued this claim at £9,000 and said it related to a job evaluation / higher band pay point, but she confirmed she had worked her contractual notice and been paid. The tribunal found there was no concluded contract at the higher rate of pay and struck the claim out for no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination allegation concerning Mr Ernest Anyadioha; paragraph 1 of the claimant's further information was found to have no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination allegation concerning Mr Francis Creppy; paragraph 2 of the claimant's further information was found to have no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- section 43B of the Employment Rights Act
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.