Case 3306034/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306034/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a short procedural judgment of Employment Judge Laidler, sitting alone at Bury St Edmunds (by CVP) on 12 December 2025. The Tribunal refused the Claimant's application to amend his claim. No substantive determination of the underlying race or religion or belief discrimination claims is recorded in this document.
The Respondent applied for costs. The Tribunal found that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in his conduct of the proceedings in the way he lodged his amendment application, such as to give rise to the Tribunal's power to award costs. The Claimant was ordered to pay £2,000 towards the Respondent's costs, to be paid by 12 January 2026.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No lay members are recorded and no specific legal tests are named in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Procedural ruling only: the Claimant's application to amend was refused. The underlying substantive claims (listed on gov.uk as race and religion or belief discrimination) were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Costs application by the Respondent: the Tribunal found the Claimant acted unreasonably in his conduct of the proceedings in the way he lodged his amendment application, giving rise to a power to award costs. The Claimant was ordered to pay £2,000 towards the Respondent's costs (payable by 12 January 2026). This is a costs order against the Claimant, not a remedy to the Claimant. | Other | — | £2,000 |
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.