Case 6000605/2023 · Employment Tribunal

In Person v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 6000605/2023
Decision date: 20 November 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Smail Appearances
Venue: Exeter

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In Person

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing in Exeter on 8 November 2023 before Employment Judge Smail, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel. The tribunal considered the claimant's amended particulars of claim in proceedings against Apple Retail UK Limited.

Permission to add claims of sex discrimination, race discrimination and disability discrimination was refused. The tribunal also ruled that the amended particulars of claim could stand only insofar as they engaged the existing unfair dismissal and age discrimination claims.

Full oral reasons were given at the hearing. The judgment records that any party seeking written reasons had to email the Bristol Employment Tribunal within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	Permission to add this claim was refused at the preliminary hearing.	Other	Sex	—
Race discrimination	Permission to add this claim was refused at the preliminary hearing.	Other	Race	—
Disability discrimination	Permission to add this claim was refused at the preliminary hearing.	Other	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	The amended particulars of claim were allowed to stand insofar as they engaged the existing unfair dismissal claim; no merits decision was made.	Other	—	—
Age discrimination	The amended particulars of claim were allowed to stand insofar as they engaged the existing age discrimination claim; no merits decision was made.	Other	Age	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.