Case 6000120/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Respondent: Dr R Luthi-Carter v (1) University of Leicester (2) Ms N Bradley (3) Mr G Dixon (4) De Montford Higher Education Corporation (5) Mr S Barrow (6) Ms R Watson (7) Professor S Oldroyd (8) Ms P Robson (9) Professor C Normington v Dr R Luthi-Carter v and 9 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000120/2023
- Decision date
- 9 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
11 namedClaimant
Respondent: Dr R Luthi-Carter v (1) University of Leicester (2) Ms N Bradley (3) Mr G Dixon (4) De Montford Higher Education Corporation (5) Mr S Barrow (6) Ms R Watson (7) Professor S Oldroyd (8) Ms P Robson (9) Professor C Normington
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer sitting alone at Leicester on 4 July 2023. The claimant, a former professor at the University of Leicester (1st respondent), alleged that an email sent on 10 August 2022 by the 5th respondent (HR Business Partner at De Montfort University, the 4th respondent) constituted a prohibited list under Regulation 3 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. The judge recorded the withdrawal of her direct disability discrimination claim against the 1st and 3rd respondents and accordingly dismissed the 3rd respondent from the proceedings.
The judge struck out the claimant's Regulation 9 claim against the 1st respondent as having no reasonable prospects of success. The two claims against the 4th respondent (under Regulation 3 in respect of the alleged prohibited list, and under Regulation 5 in respect of the alleged failure to progress her employment enquiry) were each found to have little reasonable prospect of success and were made subject to deposit orders. The remaining respondents (1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th) were retained as 'piggyback' parties under Regulation 15, on the basis that liability could only fall upon them if the claimant succeeded against the 4th respondent.
Taking the claimant's limited means into account, the judge ordered deposits of GBP 15 for each of the nine relevant allegations, totalling GBP 135. The maximum permissible deposit under the rules would have been GBP 1,000 per allegation (GBP 9,000 in total) but the judge considered a higher amount would place a bar on the claimant pursuing the claims given her financial circumstances. The claimant was warned that failure to pay the deposits would result in the relevant claims being struck out, and that continuing the claims after paying a deposit could expose her to a costs award if she lost at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim against the 1st and 3rd respondents, dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Other | Claim against the 1st respondent under Regulation 9 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim against the 4th respondent under Regulation 5 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 made subject to a deposit order on the basis it has little reasonable prospects of success. Claim continues subject to payment of deposit. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Claim against the 4th respondent that it is party to a prohibited list contrary to Regulation 3 also subject to a deposit order on the basis of little reasonable prospects of success. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Regulation 3 Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010
- Regulation 5 Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010
- Regulation 9 Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010
- Regulation 15 Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010
- Rule 39(5)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 76 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.