Case 3311292/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Katia Segor v Secretary of State for Justice HELD AT: Watford ET (via video) VR — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311292/2023
- Decision date
- 31 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shergill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Katia Segor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this public preliminary hearing at Watford Employment Tribunal by video, before Employment Judge Shergill sitting alone, the respondent applied under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure to strike out the claimant's claims. The tribunal refused that application on all grounds for the reasons given orally at the hearing.
The written record does not set out merits findings on the underlying unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, or disability discrimination claims. It records instead that those claims will proceed to a full merits hearing, with case management orders to follow separately. No monetary award was made at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent's Rule 37(1)(a) strike-out application was refused on all grounds. The written record does not determine the merits of this claim, and it is to proceed to a full merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The respondent's Rule 37(1)(a) strike-out application was refused on all grounds. The written record does not determine the merits of this claim, and it is to proceed to a full merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent's Rule 37(1)(a) strike-out application was refused on all grounds. The written record does not determine the merits of this claim, and it is to proceed to a full merits hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.