Cases1300105/2023

Claimant v Jaguar Land Rover Limited

31 March 2025Before Employment Judge CampBirminghamin person

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Complaint 2.2.1 relating to alleged incident in September 2017 was dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with it because of time limits.

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Complaint 2.2.2 relating to alleged incident in September 2019 was dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with it because of time limits.

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Application to amend claim to add complaint about being designated C-grade rather than D-grade and being paid as such in and from 2019 was refused by the Tribunal.

Victimisationstruck out

Complaint 7.3.2 relating to job title allegedly being changed on 13 September 2022 was struck out on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospects of success.

Victimisationnot determined

Complaint 7.3.4 not struck out as the Respondent did not show it has no or little reasonable prospects of success. No deposit order made. Claim proceeds to final hearing.

Victimisationnot determined

Complaint 7.3.5 not struck out as the Respondent did not show it has no or little reasonable prospects of success. No deposit order made. Claim proceeds to final hearing.

Facts

Mr Sharma brought multiple discrimination and victimisation claims against Jaguar Land Rover. The Respondent applied for various claims to be struck out or for deposit orders. Some claims related to alleged incidents in September 2017 and September 2019. Mr Sharma also sought to amend his claim to add a complaint about being designated C-grade rather than D-grade from 2019. One victimisation complaint related to an alleged job title change in September 2022.

Decision

The Tribunal struck out two direct race discrimination complaints from 2017 and 2019 as out of time. It refused permission to amend to add a grade/pay complaint. It struck out one victimisation complaint (job title change) as having no reasonable prospects. It refused to strike out or make deposit orders against two other victimisation complaints, allowing them to proceed to final hearing.

Practical note

At preliminary hearings, respondents must demonstrate that claims have no or little reasonable prospects of success to secure strike-outs or deposit orders, and time limit issues can dispose of older discrimination complaints before full merits hearing.

Case details

Case number
1300105/2023
Decision date
31 March 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister