Case 3322614/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Y Buckley v Ministry of Justice Brook Street (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3322614/2021
- Decision date
- 25 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrington Appearances
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Y Buckley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Harrington heard the claimant's application to amend her claim remotely by CVP on 14 March 2023. The tribunal allowed the application in part, rather than deciding the underlying harassment allegations at that hearing.
The claims permitted to proceed to a final hearing were disability-related harassment, with schizophrenia identified as the disability relied upon, and race-related harassment. The disability-related claims were the allegations set out in paragraphs 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the draft List of Issues, and the race-related claim was the allegation set out in paragraph 12.2.
The Second Respondent, Brook Street (UK) Limited, was removed from the proceedings, and the claims continued only against the First Respondent, the Ministry of Justice. The judgment records no liability findings and no monetary award, because it was a case-management decision on amendment and party identity rather than a final merits judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal allowed the claimant's amendment in part and directed that the disability-related harassment claims in paragraphs 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the draft List of Issues proceed to a final hearing. This was an interlocutory decision, not a merits determination. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal allowed the claimant's amendment in part and directed that the race-related harassment claim in paragraph 12.2 of the draft List of Issues proceed to a final hearing. This was an interlocutory decision, not a merits determination. | Other | Race | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.