Case 3311066/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Athlon Mobility Services UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311066/2022
- Decision date
- 6 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing heard by telephone on 6 February 2023 before Employment Judge de Silva KC. The respondent applied under rule 37(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 to strike out the claimant's race and age discrimination claims, and also sought a deposit order under rule 39.
Both applications were refused. The judgment therefore did not determine the underlying discrimination allegations on their merits, but left the race and age discrimination claims to proceed beyond the preliminary stage. No award or other remedy was made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | At the open preliminary hearing, the respondent's application under rule 37(a) to strike out this claim was refused, and the application for a deposit order under rule 39 was also refused. The judgment does not decide liability on the merits. | Other | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | At the open preliminary hearing, the respondent's application under rule 37(a) to strike out this claim was refused, and the application for a deposit order under rule 39 was also refused. The judgment does not decide liability on the merits. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(a) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.