Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that there was a reasonable prospect of the claimant showing that her August 2022 grievance (protected act) was a more than trivial factor in the performance management process, despite the time gap and change of personnel. The respondent's strike-out application was dismissed.
The tribunal found there was more than little reasonable prospect of showing the search of the claimant's belongings was related to race, particularly when considering the claim holistically and the claimant's comparison to multiple white comparators. The respondent's application was dismissed.
The tribunal concluded there was more than little reasonable prospect of success, noting that if the claimant was treated less favourably than eight white comparators in different circumstances, this could shift the burden of proof. The claim is fact-sensitive and must proceed to final hearing.
Facts
The claimant, Mrs Gunawardhana, brought claims of race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation against her employer, the Secretary of State for Justice. She alleged that after raising a grievance in August 2022, she was subjected to a performance management process in February 2024, and that her belongings were searched. The respondent applied to strike out or obtain deposit orders against various allegations on the basis they had no or little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant applied for a deposit order against the respondent based on alleged failures to follow policies and respond to her amendment applications.
Decision
Employment Judge Leith dismissed both the respondent's application for strike-out or deposit orders and the claimant's deposit order application. The judge found that, taking the claimant's case at its highest and considering the claim holistically, there was more than little reasonable prospect of the claimant succeeding on her claims of victimisation, harassment, and direct race discrimination. The claims would proceed to a final hearing where the fact-sensitive issues could be properly determined.
Practical note
Tribunals will be cautious about striking out or ordering deposits in race discrimination claims, particularly where a claimant alleges differential treatment compared to multiple comparators of a different race, as such claims are highly fact-sensitive and require full evidential hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2302198/2024
- Decision date
- 29 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Secretary of State for Justice
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No