Case 3314742/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Proctor v Gillette UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314742/2020
- Decision date
- 23 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Proctor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Anstis, sitting alone in Reading on 21-22 March 2023, disposed of part of the claim by strikeout and withdrawal. The tribunal struck out the allegations listed in the order of EJ Hawksworth dated 2 December 2022 insofar as they were pleaded as direct race discrimination, race harassment, victimisation, or detriments on account of protected disclosures, because they had no reasonable prospects of success.
The tribunal also struck out paragraphs 2.1.6.16 and 2.1.6.17 only to the extent that they were alleged as detriments arising from protected disclosures. Paragraph 2.1.9 was dismissed on withdrawal. The claimant's application for costs was also dismissed. The judgment records no substantive liability findings on the merits and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Struck out, together with the related allegations listed in the judgment, on the basis that the allegations had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race harassment allegations struck out on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Race victimisation allegations struck out on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment struck out paragraphs 2.1.6.16 and 2.1.6.17 only to the extent they were pleaded as detriments arising from protected disclosures. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Paragraph 2.1.9 was dismissed on withdrawal, but the judgment does not specify the legal category of that allegation. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospects 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.