Case 3307211/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr I Hurst (Solicitor) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3307211/2023
- Decision date
- 22 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Lewis KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment decided the respondent's application to strike out claims before a merits hearing. The tribunal struck out allegations about the claimant being made homeless, parts of the allegations about being followed by police or other persons, and parts of the allegations about wrong or broken items or delayed deliveries, on the grounds stated in the judgment including no reasonable prospect of success, vexatiousness, abuse of process, and non-compliance with tribunal orders.
The tribunal refused to strike out the remaining discrimination and harassment claims. In particular, the allegation that Mr Siraj caused the claimant to be followed by police after 20 July 2022, framed as direct discrimination on grounds of religion or belief or race or harassment related to those characteristics, was allowed to proceed. The tribunal also refused to strike out the unlawful deduction of wages claim.
The judgment emphasised that refusing strike out was not a finding that the surviving claims were likely to succeed. It reflected the limited circumstances in which strike out is appropriate before a merits hearing and noted that further non-compliance with tribunal orders or unreasonable conduct could lead to future strike-out applications.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim against the respondent was dismissed on 22 February 2023 because the claimant did not have qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Some direct discrimination allegations were struck out in this preliminary judgment, including the homelessness allegation and parts of the police-following and wrong or broken items allegations. Other race discrimination allegations were not struck out, including the allegation about Mr Siraj causing the claimant to be followed by police after 20 July 2022. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Some direct discrimination allegations were struck out in this preliminary judgment, including the homelessness allegation and parts of the police-following and wrong or broken items allegations. Other religion or belief discrimination allegations were not struck out, including the allegation about Mr Siraj causing the claimant to be followed by police after 20 July 2022. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Age discrimination | The claim form included age discrimination. The strike-out application was refused except for the allegations expressly struck out. The truncated text does not make clear which surviving allegations, if any, remained specifically as age discrimination. | Other | Age | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal struck out some harassment allegations, including the homelessness allegation and parts of the allegations about being followed by police or other persons. A harassment allegation related to race or religion or belief about Mr Siraj causing the claimant to be followed by police after 20 July 2022 was not struck out. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37(1) of schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
- no reasonable prospect of success
- abuse of process
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.