Case 3327727/2017 · Employment Tribunal

In Person For the v Respondent — 2018

Case reference: 3327727/2017
Decision date: 11 January 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
Venue: Reading

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In Person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing on 10 January 2018 in Reading, before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, Mr J Bassa pursued complaints of direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and unlawful deduction from wages against CGI IT UK Limited. The judgment also records a separate dismissal claim, which was to be heard together with the current claim. The tribunal did not determine the late presentation issue at that stage, saying it should be dealt with at the full hearing.

The tribunal refused to strike out the race and sex discrimination allegations at that stage. It said that, although the claims had little reasonable prospect of success on the material then available, it could not properly conclude from the limited detail provided that they should be dismissed outright. It noted that the claimant had only set out the barest detail and that he might rely on a continuing act argument.

The claimant did not pursue a victimisation claim, and the judgment records the victimisation complaints as dismissed on withdrawal. It also records that the claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal claims, which were then dismissed under rule 52. No monetary award was made in this preliminary decision.

The only claim struck out was the allegation that the claimant suffered a detriment because of making a protected disclosure to the SFO. The tribunal struck that allegation out under rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success, explaining that the claimant had not set out an evidential basis linking the alleged detriment to the protected disclosure and was not in a position to say that any relevant person acting for the respondent knew of the disclosure.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Victimisation	The claimant said he was not making a victimisation claim in this case; the judgment records the victimisation complaints as dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.	Withdrawn	—	—
Whistleblowing	The tribunal struck out the complaint that the claimant suffered a detriment because of making a protected disclosure to the SFO under rule 37(1)(a) for no reasonable prospects of success. The reasons also discuss disclosure allegations to the Pensions Advisory Service and Pensions Regulator, but the order expressly disposes of the SFO-based complaint.	Struck out	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal claims, including claims in the further dismissal claim form, and the tribunal dismissed them pursuant to rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.