Case 6001239/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Dakaj v Steel Supplies Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001239/2023
- Decision date
- 19 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Dakaj
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a video hearing in Hull on 28 January 2025, Employment Judge Miller struck out two specified allegations. Both were pleaded as harassment related to race and direct race discrimination. The first concerned an alleged comment by Tristan Alison about the Claimant speaking with Howard Todd, and the second concerned an alleged complaint to Tristan Alison and an alleged failure to warn the identified individuals afterwards.
The tribunal held that those allegations had no reasonable prospects of success and therefore struck them out. The order states that no other complaints were struck out. The written record also notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The allegation listed in paragraph 1(a) was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. It was pleaded as harassment related to race and direct race discrimination. The tribunal also stated that no other complaints were struck out. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The allegation listed in paragraph 1(a) was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. It was pleaded as direct race discrimination and harassment related to race. The tribunal also stated that no other complaints were struck out. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospects of success
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.