Case 6008602/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. B. Huckridge v Roust UK Ltd. Hearing: Public Preliminary Hearing — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008602/2024
- Decision date
- 18 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. B. Huckridge
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing in London Central Employment Tribunal on 10 June 2025, Employment Judge Tinnion dealt with two claims brought by Ms. B. Huckridge against Roust UK Ltd. The holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal, so no substantive determination or monetary award was made on that claim.
The claimant’s direct race discrimination claim, brought under sections 13 and 39(2)(d) of the Equality Act 2010 and relying on the protected characteristic of Polish nationality, was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that reasons for the strike-out decision were given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim under ss.13 and 39(2)(d) Equality Act 2010 relied on Polish nationality and was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38(1)(a)
- ss.13 and 39(2)(d) Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.