Claimant v 3D Leisure Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claims before 6 November 2024 were time-barred and dismissed. The claim relating to 26 December 2024 was struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, providing no actual comparators and no evidence as to why race was a factor in his treatment. Even taking his case at its highest, he did not meet the Madarassy test of showing something more than disparity of treatment that could point to race being a reason.
The claim for three days' unpaid wages in December 2024 was allowed to proceed to a final hearing on the merits. The tribunal found a factual dispute existed between the parties regarding whether wages had been fully paid, and without hearing evidence from the respondent's payroll, could not conclude the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
The claimant accepted that the respondent had paid accrued holiday pay covering the disputed period. The claimant was unable to demonstrate why any sums remained outstanding and did not engage with the respondent's calculations showing full payment.
Facts
The claimant, a cleaner of 17 months' service, brought claims for race discrimination and unpaid wages. He alleged differential treatment by supervisors, particularly regarding mobile phone use, disputed attendance records, and paternity leave requests made in October 2023. His employment ended on 30 December 2024. He alleged various incidents of race discrimination spanning from October 2023 to December 2024, primarily involving interactions with his supervisor Cherelle. He also claimed three days' unpaid wages for December 2024, though the respondent asserted all wages and accrued holiday pay had been paid.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all race discrimination claims before 6 November 2024 as time-barred, finding no basis for just and equitable extension given the 18-month delay. The race discrimination claim for 26 December 2024 was struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success, as the claimant failed to establish a prima facie case showing race as a factor in his treatment. Only the claim for three days' unpaid wages in December was allowed to proceed to a final hearing due to a factual dispute requiring payroll evidence.
Practical note
A self-represented claimant bringing discrimination claims must plead more than mere disparity of treatment and must identify why the protected characteristic is a factor, otherwise the claim risks strike out even at preliminary stage.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000820/2025
- Decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- cleaner
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No