Case 6013026/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Lucian Bota v OCS Group UK Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6013026/2025
- Decision date
- 19 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grahame Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lucian Bota
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a private preliminary case management hearing on 19 May 2026, Employment Judge Grahame Anderson refused Lucian Bota’s applications to amend his claim to include indirect discrimination because of religion or belief, harassment related to race, and harassment related to religion or belief. The judgment records procedural decisions on the proposed amendments and does not determine the merits of those proposed claims.
OCS Group UK Limited’s application for permission to withdraw its concession that Mr Bota was a disabled person succeeded. The judgment records no determination of whether Mr Bota was disabled and makes no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The application to amend the claim to include indirect discrimination contrary to s.19 of the Equality Act 2010 was refused; the merits of the proposed claim were not determined. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The application to amend the claim to include harassment related to race contrary to s.26 of the Equality Act 2010 was refused; the merits of the proposed claim were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The application to amend the claim to include harassment related to religion or belief contrary to s.26 of the Equality Act 2010 was refused; the merits of the proposed claim were not determined. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
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.