Case 6007004/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Dujon Lecointe v Hyperoptic Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007004/2025
- Decision date
- 2 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
- Venue
- In private
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Dujon Lecointe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a private preliminary hearing conducted by Cloud Video Platform on 24 November 2025 before Employment Judge Gidney. The tribunal considered compliance with an Unless Order made by Employment Judge Klimov on 31 October 2025.
The tribunal held that the claimant was in substantial compliance with that Unless Order and that no relief from the sanction of strike out was necessary. The order also amended the claimant's Particulars of Claim to add claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, in the form set out in the List of Issues attached to the Case Management Order of 24 November 2025.
The judgment did not decide the merits of the discrimination claims and did not make any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing order only. The tribunal permitted amendment to add claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments; it did not determine the merits of those claims. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | The tribunal found the claimant was in substantial compliance with an Unless Order and that no relief from strike out was necessary. This was procedural and not a merits determination of a substantive claim. | 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.
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.