Case 1300056/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Abraham v Stoke on Trent City Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 1300056/2019
- Decision date
- 23 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood Appearance
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Abraham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 23 September 2019, Employment Judge Flood heard the matter in the claimant’s absence. The respondent was represented by Ms M Makwana, solicitor. The extracted judgment does not identify the substantive claim type(s), but it records that the case concerned Mr J Abraham and Stoke on Trent City Council.
The tribunal struck out the claimant’s case under Rule 37(1)(a) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Schedule 1. The stated grounds were that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success and that it had not been actively pursued.
The respondent’s application for costs against the claimant was refused and dismissed. No monetary award was made to either party in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment text does not identify the underlying substantive claim type(s). The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Schedule 1. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Schedule 1
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.