Case 3334465/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S T Anajemba v Brit Sec Limited Brit Sec Staff Services Limited (In Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 3334465/2018
- Decision date
- 19 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S T Anajemba
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the first respondent's application for reconsideration of the rejection of its response. At an earlier hearing on 15 August 2019, the tribunal had ordered the first respondent to file a statement explaining the basis of its application and to provide draft grounds of defence by 4 pm on 12 September 2019. The respondent did not comply with either order.
Because no statement or draft grounds were provided, the tribunal recorded that there was no explanation for why the response had been presented late and no explanation of any grounds of defence. The application for reconsideration of the decision to reject the response was therefore refused. The judgment was made pursuant to rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal succeeded against the first respondent. A separate hearing was listed for 27 and 28 May 2020 to determine the remedy to which the claimant was entitled and whether any remedy should be ordered against the first respondent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint about direct race discrimination succeeded against the first respondent. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint about unfair dismissal succeeded against the first respondent. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.