Case 3305139/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Ifeka, Counsel For v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305139/2022
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Ifeka, Counsel For
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal refused the Claimant's application to amend her claim to add complaints under Regulations 5 and 7 of the Part-time Workers Regulations. It found the proposed complaints were more than a relabelling of existing pleaded facts, were new claims for limitation purposes, and still lacked necessary detail about the causative link between part-time status and the alleged treatment.
The Tribunal refused the Respondent's applications to strike out or require deposits for the direct sex and race discrimination complaints on the basis that treatment was because of the protected characteristics. It also refused the time-limit strike-out/deposit applications for the complaints against PC, TP and CG, but found little reasonable prospect of the complaints against DH, RA and CD being in time, so those complaints could proceed only if the Claimant complied with a separate deposit order.
The Tribunal refused the Respondent's strike-out/deposit applications in relation to the victimisation complaints, finding the issues of time, detriment and causation were arguable matters requiring evidence. The unauthorised deduction from wages claim, and specified race discrimination, sex discrimination and victimisation allegations, were dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The Tribunal refused the Claimant's application to amend her claim to include complaints under Regulations 5 and 7 of the Part-time Workers Regulations; the complaints were not accepted as live claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | This preliminary judgment did not determine the merits of the direct sex discrimination complaints. The Respondent's strike-out/deposit applications were refused for all alleged perpetrators on causation, refused for PC, TP and CG on time, and deposit orders were ordered for DH, RA and CD on time. Some sex discrimination allegations were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Other | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | This preliminary judgment did not determine the merits of the direct race discrimination complaints. The Respondent's strike-out/deposit applications were refused for all alleged perpetrators on causation, refused for PC, TP and CG on time, and deposit orders were ordered for DH, RA and CD on time. Some race discrimination allegations were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | This preliminary judgment did not determine the merits of the victimisation complaints. The Respondent's strike-out/deposit applications were refused on prospects of establishing treatment because of the protected act and on time. Some victimisation allegations were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deduction from wages claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. |
Legal tests applied
16 references- rule 29 Employment Tribunal Rules
- rule 2 overriding objective
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Selkent Bus Co v Moore
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- Foxtons Ltd v Ruwiel
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon Thames
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Lyfar v Brighton and Hove University Hospitals Trust
- Aziz v FDA
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Sougrin v Haringey Health Authority
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.