Case 3312045/2022 · Employment Tribunal
K Donovan v London Borough of Hillingdon — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312045/2022
- Decision date
- 4 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloch KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
K Donovan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard an open preliminary hearing on 8 August 2023 about the claimant's attempts to secure a subsidised undergraduate social work course and later allegations connected with his workplace treatment. Applying Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836, Employment Judge Bloch KC allowed amendments only for race discrimination or race-related harassment, limited to paragraphs 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14 and 20 of the amendment application. All other age-discrimination amendments were rejected except paragraph 10 about the AMI course, and the existing age discrimination claims in the earlier preliminary hearing record were struck out for no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal said limitation and continuing-act issues should be left to the full merits hearing. It treated the race allegations as arguable at this stage, noting that the claimant said his race characteristic was his ethnic origin, described as German and Swiss, and held that it would be wrong before disclosure to conclude that the race claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent's request for a deposit order was refused, including because the claimant said he had very limited funds. No remedy was awarded at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | All of the age-discrimination amendments were rejected except paragraph 10 concerning the AMI course, which was allowed. The claimant's existing age discrimination claims in the earlier preliminary hearing record were struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Amendment was allowed for the race discrimination allegations, including paragraphs 13 and 20 as direct race discrimination. The tribunal refused strike out and did not make a deposit order, but it made no merits determination. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment amendments were allowed for paragraphs 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14 and 20. No final merits ruling was made at this hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.