Gray v Hurst (Dundonald) [2009] NIIT 1011_08IT (02 April 2009)

Gray v Hurst (Dundonald) [2009] NIIT 1011_08IT (02 April 2009)

The claimant's claim was struck out because it was misconceived, lacking reasonable prospect of success, and in the alternative, for failure to comply with the tribunal's 'Unless Order' requiring further information and discovery.

Citation
[2009] NIIT 1011_08IT
Parties
Claimant: James Gray; Respondent: Charles Hurst (Dundonald); Respondent: Justin Kinnear (Manager)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
02 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Pre Hearing Review
Outcome
Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Striking Out Claims, Procedural Compliance
Employment Law Equality Law Race Discrimination Striking Out Claims Procedural Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Gray

Claimant

Charles Hurst (Dundonald)

Respondent

Justin Kinnear (Manager)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Pre Hearing Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's claim for race discrimination has a reasonable prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out for failure to comply with tribunal orders

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's claim was struck out because it was misconceived, lacking reasonable prospect of success, and in the alternative, for failure to comply with the tribunal's 'Unless Order' requiring further information and discovery.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

  • Claimant's claim against respondents struck out pursuant to Rule 18(7)(b) for being misconceived
  • Claimant's claim against respondents struck out pursuant to Rule 18(7)(e) for non-compliance with 'Unless Order' dated 19 December 2008