Case 3315318/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Clarke v The Governors of the Lakeview School — 2021
- Case reference
- 3315318/2020
- Decision date
- 6 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Clarke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Clarke applied unsuccessfully to become a school governor at The Governors of the Lakeview School and, after early conciliation, brought a race discrimination claim. The respondent applied to strike out the claim, first on the basis that the role was voluntary and outside the Equality Act 2010, and alternatively on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success or warranted a deposit order.
On jurisdiction, the tribunal accepted that volunteers are not automatically outside the Equality Act, and noted that a volunteer may be protected if there is a legally binding contract to provide work personally. Because the tribunal had no evidence about the legal arrangements for the governor role, it could not determine whether a successful applicant would have entered into a relationship amounting to 'employment' for the purposes of s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010. The strike out application on that basis was therefore refused, with the point left to be dealt with at the final hearing.
On the merits-based applications, the tribunal applied the usual high threshold for strike out and the lower threshold for a deposit order, referring to Anyanwu, Ezsias, Morgan v Royal Mencap Society and Hemdan v Ishmail. Taking Mr Clarke's case at its highest, and in light of the disputes about why he was not appointed and whether the respondent knew his ethnicity, the tribunal held that it could not say the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, or even little reasonable prospect of success. The applications for strike out and for a deposit order were both refused.
The tribunal also varied case management directions, extending the listed hearing to three days and amending the timetable for disclosure, bundle preparation, witness statements and document upload. No financial remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment was an open preliminary hearing on the respondent's applications to strike out the race discrimination claim or, alternatively, to order a deposit. Those applications were refused. The underlying claim was not finally determined in this judgment and was listed to proceed to the merits hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- rule 39 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- rule 2 overriding objective
- X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau
- Anyanwu v Southbank Student Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Morgan v Royal Mencap Society
- Hemdan v Ishmail
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.