Case 3335592/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335592/2018
- Decision date
- 6 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Vowles sitting alone. It accepted that the earlier employment tribunal, EAT and Court of Appeal proceedings were protected acts for section 27 Equality Act 2010 purposes, and it also accepted the undisputed chronology that the claimant raised a grievance on 3 September 2018 and a second grievance on 16 September 2018 after his current health condition had been disclosed to Paul Wilson on or around 5 July 2018 and then referred to in a Court of Appeal skeleton argument on or around 22 August 2018.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Strike-out application under Rule 37 succeeded in substance: the tribunal found the victimisation claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- St Helen’s Borough Council v Derbyshire & Others
- Deer v University of Oxford
- Abiola v North Yorkshire County Council & Others
- judicial proceedings immunity
- Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Parmar v East Leicester Medical Practice
- South London and Maudsley NHS Trust v Dathi
- Lincoln v Daniels
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.