Mr Amaradasa, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2021

The claim was heard by Employment Judge King at Cambridge on 31 January 2022. The tribunal decided the matter on the papers and submissions, without hearing oral evidence, and the claimant was represented by a solicitor while the respondent was represented by counsel. The judgment records that the claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant started work on 26 August 2019 and did not have the two years' continuous service required by s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. No exception to the qualifying period was shown. The operative judgment therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction, although the reasons later refer to the claim being struck out on the same service-bar point.

On race discrimination, the claimant relied on his dismissal and on an earlier decision in February 2020 not to make him permanent. Applying the burden of proof in s.136 Equality Act 2010 and the strike-out power in Rule 37, the tribunal found there were no facts from which it could infer discrimination. The claimant accepted the conduct that led to dismissal, did not identify a comparator who was treated differently in comparable circumstances, and the respondent's documentary evidence showed that both the claimant and John McCullough were not made permanent.

The tribunal also found that the permanency allegation was brought well outside the primary time limit and that no basis had been advanced for extending time. It concluded that the race discrimination claim had no reasonable prospects of success and that this was an appropriate case for strike out, referring to the guidance in Anyanwu. The tribunal considered but did not grant a deposit order, because it had already concluded that the claim was beyond merely weak and had no realistic prospect of succeeding at a full hearing.