Case 3305412/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Quantrill, solicitor For the v Ms C Nicolaou, solicitor PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305412/2022
- Decision date
- 19 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Manley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Quantrill, solicitor For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 9 January 2023, before Employment Judge Manley, the tribunal considered whether the claimant's sex discrimination and/or harassment related to sex claim should be struck out or made the subject of a deposit order. The respondent was represented by Ms C Nicolaou and the claimant by Mr S Quantrill, solicitor.
The tribunal decided that the claim was not struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. It also refused to make a deposit order, recording that it could not be said at that stage that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. Case management orders were dealt with separately in another document.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the sex discrimination claim was not struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal made no deposit order because it could not say at that stage that the harassment claim had little reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
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.