Case 6000223/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Nimmagadda Baby v NewDay Cards plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000223/2023
- Decision date
- 18 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Nimmagadda Baby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 10 August 2023 before Employment Judge Rostant, the tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the equal pay claim to name a new comparator and struck out the equal pay claim as pleaded because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent's application for a deposit order in relation to the sex, race and age discrimination claims was dismissed.
The tribunal dismissed all race discrimination claims on withdrawal. It also dismissed the pleaded sex discrimination claims at 7.1 to 7.6 inclusive and 7.10 on withdrawal, but stated that those allegations proceed only as age discrimination claims. The application to amend to include claim 7.12 was allowed insofar as it was a sex discrimination claim, while the application to amend the age discrimination claims to add complaints about the performance process at 7.26.2 was refused. The record states that no decision was made on any application relating to the victimisation claim, and that any discrimination or victimisation claims not listed in the revised list drawn up by EJ Davies were dismissed on withdrawal. No remedy was awarded in this preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The application to amend the equal pay claim to name a new comparator was dismissed; the equal pay claim as set out in the claim form was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | All claims of race discrimination were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The pleaded sex discrimination claims at 7.1 to 7.6 inclusive and 7.10 were dismissed on withdrawal, but the tribunal permitted the amendment to include claim 7.12 insofar as it is a sex discrimination claim. | Other | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal said the claims formerly pleaded as sex discrimination proceed as age discrimination only. The application to amend the age discrimination claims to include complaints about the performance process at 7.26.2 was dismissed. | Other | Age | — |
| Victimisation | No decision was made on any application in relation to the victimisation claim. The judgment also states that any discrimination or victimisation claims not listed in the revised list drawn up by EJ Davies are dismissed on withdrawal, but the record does not identify whether this claim was among the listed claims. | Other | — | — |
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.
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.