Mr JC Woods v The Secretary of State for Justice and Others: 1403829/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2023 |
| Date | 28 July 2023 |
| Citation | 1403829/2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 27 October 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Sexual Orientation Discrimination/Transexualism |
Case Number: 1403829/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mr JC Woods
Respondent:
(1) The Secretary of State for Justice
(2) Ms H Reeves
(3) Ms S Boreham
Heard at:
By video and by
telephone (Cardiff)
On: 20 July 2022
Before:
Employment Judge R Harfield (sitting alone)
Representation:
Claimant:
Mr Woods represented himself
Respondent:
Ms Hirsch (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
(Strike out, deposit order, and amendment)
It is the decision of the Employment Judge sitting alone that:
1. The complaints against the second and third respondents are dismissed
upon withdrawal by the claimant as the first respondent has accepted
they are liable for any acts or omissions of the second or third
respondent;
2. The respondents’ application to strike out all or part of the claimant’s
complaints does not succeed;
3. The following specific allegations have little reasonable prospect of
success (because they are likely to be caught by a binding COT3
agreement) and I have decided it is appropriate to make an order
requiring the claimant to pay a deposit of £100 for each individual specific
allegation as a condition of continuing to advance that specific allegation:
Case Number: 1403829/2021
2
3.1 victimisation in respect of receiving a letter on 24 May that he was to be
subject to a disciplinary investigation;
3.2 harassment related to sexual orientation in respect of receiving a letter on
24 May that he was to be subject to a disciplinary investigation;
3.3 harassment related to race in respect of receiving a letter on 24 May that
he was to be subject to a disciplinary investigation;
3.4 harassment related to age in respect of receiving a letter on 24 May that
he was to be subject to a disciplinary investigation;
3.5 trade union detriment in respect of respect of receiving a letter on 24 May
that he was to be subject to a disciplinary investigation;
3.6 victimisation in respect of being informed verbally by the second
respondent that he was going to be investigated but not being informed of the
reason why;
3.7 harassment related to sexual orientation in respect of being informed
verbally by the second respondent that he was going to be investigated but
not being informed of the reason why;
3.8 harassment related to race in respect of being informed verbally by the
second respondent that he was going to be investigated but not being
informed of the reason why;
3.9 harassment related to age in respect of being informed verbally by the
second respondent that he was going to be investigated but not being
informed of the reason why;
3.10 trade union detriment in respect of being informed verbally by the
second respondent that he was going to be investigated but not being
informed of the reason why;
3.11 victimisation in respect of the claimant and his colleagues being
interviewed which created a difficult working atmosphere;
3.12 harassment related to sexual orientation in respect of the claimant and
his colleagues being interviewed which created a difficult working
atmosphere;
3.13 harassment related to race in respect of the claimant and his colleagues
being interviewed which created a difficult working atmosphere;
3.14 harassment related to age in respect of the claimant and his colleagues
being interviewed which created a difficult working atmosphere;
3.15 trade union detriment in respect of the claimant and his colleagues being
interviewed which created a difficult working atmosphere.
4. The claimant’s complaint about being required to attend a disciplinary hearing
(allegation iv) as presented has no reasonable prospect of success as it would
be caught by judicial proceedings immunity, however, he should have the
opportunity to amend the complaint to remove the reference to what was
allegedly said at the judicial mediation. It could then proceed;
5. The claimant’s application to amend is granted;
6. The case will be listed for a further case management hearing once the claimant
has made the decision whether to pay some or all of the deposit order.
To continue reading
Request your trial