Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Please note the following correction to the costs decision issued on 07 September 2015 :-
"The tribunal however does commend the claimant, who is still at school, for his tenacity in pursuing the case. However, it is regrettable, having had the benefit of prior legal advice, that he had not crystallised the issues clearly before the tribunal and had not intimated the potential basis for a resolution of the case, which he had mentioned to the tribunal ......"
"The tribunal however does commend the claimant, who is still at school, for his tenacity in pursuing the case. However, it is regrettable, having had the benefit of prior legal advice, that he had not crystallised the issues clearly before the tribunal and had not intimidated the potential basis for a resolution of the case, which he had mentioned to the tribunal ......"
The decision of the tribunal is that it refuses the respondent's application to make a Deposit Order in relation to the claimant's claim for sex discrimination.
This matter was dealt with by submissions. The tribunal had regard to the claimant's claim form, the respondent's response, a Case Management Discussion record of proceedings of 29 January 2015 and the written submission on behalf of the respondent from Messrs Murnaghan & Fee Solicitors of 13 February 2015.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.