Case 6022902/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Toth v Hughes Driver Training Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022902/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Toth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Shore struck out the claimant's claim of race discrimination in its entirety under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judge found that the claim was scandalous and vexatious, that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the claimant was scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious, and that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. The judge also recorded that the claim had more than no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant's cross-application to strike out the respondent's response was dismissed. The judge indicated that, had the claim not been struck out, a deposit order in the sum of £1,000 would have been made because the claim had little reasonable prospect of success, given the absence of evidence linking the conduct complained of to the claimant's race.
PDF text was truncated; full reasoning on the conduct findings was not entirely visible.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim under section 55 Equality Act 2010 struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on grounds that it was scandalous and vexatious, the manner of conduct of proceedings was scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious, and the Tribunal considered a fair hearing was no longer possible. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 55 Equality Act 2010
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group
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.