Mr T Ikeda v Misuho Bank Ltd and others: 2201365/2020
| Judgment Date | 17 February 2022 |
| Citation | 2201365/2020 |
| Date | 17 February 2022 |
| Published date | 07 March 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Age Discrimination |
Case No: 2201365/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr T Ikeda
Respondent: (1) Misuho Bank Ltd
(2) Mr N Shirasaki
(3) Mr S Butcher
Heard at: London Central On: 17 February 2022
Before: Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Representation
Claimant: Miss A Robinson - Counsel
Respondent: Mr N Roberts – Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT ON
PRELIMINARY MATTER
The following claims are struck out under rule 37(1)(a):
1. Direct age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, section 13.
2. Direct race discrimination (unilaterally terminating the claimant’s employment
during his period of sick leave) under the Equality Act 2010, section 13.
3. Constructive unfair dismissal.
The following claims are struck out under rule 37(1)(a) on the grounds that the
claim is out of time and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear them:
4. Direct race discrimination (for failing to pay the claimant a bonus between July
2013 and June 2016 for completing Inflation Linked Swap deals) under the
Equality Act 2010, section 13.
5. Direct race discrimination (for failing to increase the claimant’s remuneration
or changes job title to reflect the additional quantitative analysis work that he
took in April 2012) under the Equality Act 2010, section 13.
Case No: 2201365/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
REASONS
Introduction
1. This preliminary hearing was listed to determine the respondents’ applications
to strike out parts of the claim and to make a deposit order and also for the
purposes of further case management. For the purposes of clarity this
preliminary hearing has been convened under rule 53 (1) (c) to consider
whether a claim or any part should be struck out under rule 37.
2. The claimant is a Japanese national. He was employed by the first
respondent, an international bank, as a Lead Business Analyst from 4 May
2010 until 3 December 2019. He has claimed:
a. constructive unfair dismissal;
b. direct discrimination based on age;
c. direct discrimination based on race.
3. He presented his claim form to the Tribunal on 3 March 2020 following a
period of early conciliation with each of the three respondents which
commenced on 8 January 2020 and ended on 8 February 2020. The
respondents deny liability.
4. On 16 December 2021, the respondents’ solicitors applied for strike
out/deposit orders in the following terms. The application was prepared on the
basis of the respondents’ draft list of issues [139] which had been prepared
on the basis of the claims pleaded by the claimant in his particulars of claim
dated 3 March 2020 and further and better particulars dated 15 November
2021. The respondents expressed concern that they believed that the claim
was entirely manufactured by the claimant as a consequence of his tactical
resignation having “backfired”. The respondents say that the claimant
resigned on 4 November 2019 not for the purpose of terminating his
employment but to obtain more favourable employment terms from the first
respondent. His resignation was accepted and he instructed solicitors. The
respondent says that through this litigation, the claimant has raised several
highly tendentious and stale allegations of discrimination (despite being vocal
in his complaints) he had never raised them before it became clear that his
attempt to leverage more favourable employment terms had backfired. All of
the allegations are apparently aimed at causing maximum inconvenience to
the respondent
5. The grounds for strike out are as follows:
a. Rule 37(1)(a) of The Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
2013:
To continue reading
Request your trial