Case 6021255/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Dias v Lloyd Baker Leather Ltd (Paul Costelloe, Swindon) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6021255/2025
- Decision date
- 5 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Dias
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of marriage or civil partnership. The tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out the claims under rule 38 on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success.
For the discrimination complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant had to have been married or in a civil partnership at the time of the alleged discrimination to be protected under the Equality Act. The claimant's case was based on her intention to marry, which the tribunal found could not succeed under the Act.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant lacked two years' service and had not identified a statutory exception allowing the claim to proceed. Even on a generous reading as a possible statutory-rights dismissal claim connected to annual leave, the tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the argument could succeed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under rule 38 as having no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal found the claimant lacked two years' service and had not reasonably disclosed an automatically unfair dismissal claim based on assertion of a statutory right. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | Dismissed under rule 38 as having no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal found the claimant was not married or in a civil partnership at the time of the alleged discrimination. | Dismissed | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
Legal tests applied
19 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Twist DX-v-Armes UKEAT/0030/20/JOJ
- HM Prison Service-v-Dolby [2003] IRLR 694
- Mbuisa-v-Cygnet Healthcare Ltd UKEAT/0119/18
- Anyanwu-v-South Bank Students Union [2001] UKHL 1764
- Xie-v-E'Quipe Japan Ltd [2024] EAT 176
- Balls-v-Downham Market School [2011] IRLR
- Ezsias-v-North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330
- Mecharov-v-Citibank [2016] ICR
- Chandok-v-Tirkey [2015] ICR 527
- Igen-v-Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142
- Romanowska-v-Aspirations Care Ltd UKEAT/0015/14
- Community Law Clinics Solicitors Ltd & Ors-v-Methuen UKEAT/0024/11
- rule 40 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Sharma-v-New College Nottingham [2011] UKEAT/0287/11/LA
- Spring-v-First Capital East Ltd [2011] UKEAT/0567/11/LA
- Ahir-v-British Airways [2017] EWCA Civ 1392
- s.104(4)(d) Employment Rights Act
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulation 15
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.