Case 6000101/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Folarin v The Camden Society (London) Heard: Remotely at Nottingham (by video link) — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000101/2023
- Decision date
- 25 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Folarin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had ticked the race discrimination box in his ET1 but had not set out a narrative allegation of race discrimination. He was ordered to provide further details and later submitted an application to amend with particulars of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race.
The hearing proceeded in the claimant's absence after connection difficulties and no application for an adjournment. The tribunal considered the written material, the overriding objective, and the parties' submissions on amendment.
The tribunal found that the proposed race discrimination allegations were not pleaded in the ET1, were raised late, and were out of time. Applying the amendment authorities and the balance of injustice and hardship, it refused the amendment application and struck out the race discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment refused the claimant's application to amend to pursue race discrimination allegations and stated that the race discrimination claim was struck out because it did not exist as a claim as set out in the ET1 alone. The opening judgment also says the race discrimination claim is dismissed in its entirety. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Presidential Guidance on Seeking a Postponement of a Hearing
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
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.