Case 6001255/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Bell v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001255/2023
- Decision date
- 24 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had written to the claimant on 25 April 2024 giving him an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the disability discrimination complaint should not be struck out. The reasons given were that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's Order dated 15 March 2024.
The claimant did not make written representations or request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the complaints of discrimination arising from disability, disability related harassment, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The judgment recorded that the claimant's remaining unfair dismissal claim remained listed for hearing on 29 May 2024, so no outcome on that claim was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out complaints of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments because they had no reasonable prospect of success and the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's 15 March 2024 Order; the claimant did not make representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment struck out the complaint of disability related harassment on the same basis as the other disability discrimination complaints. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect 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.