Case 4112466/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Kozels v OVO (S) Metering Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4112466/2021
- Decision date
- 25 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Kozels
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing on 21 July 2022 in Cardiff, by video, was before Employment Judge R Harfield. The respondent applied to strike out the claim, or parts of it, or alternatively for a deposit order, on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospects, or little reasonable prospects, because of time limit issues.
The tribunal rejected that application. It was satisfied that the claimant had a prima facie arguable case that there was a continuing act of discrimination throughout the period in question. On that basis, the tribunal did not determine at this stage whether the complained-of events were in fact discriminatory, whether they amounted to a continuing course of discriminatory conduct, or whether any alleged discriminatory acts outside time should be brought in by a just and equitable extension.
The judgment records that those matters are for determination on the evidence at the final hearing. No substantive decisions on liability or remedy were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The respondent's application to strike out the claim, or parts of it, or alternatively for a deposit order, was rejected. The tribunal said the claimant had a prima facie arguable case that there was a continuing act of discrimination during the relevant period, but it made no substantive decision on whether the alleged events were discriminatory or in time. | 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.
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.