Case 1300414/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Stephen Fletcher v Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group INTERIM RELIEF HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 1300414/2025
- Decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Stephen Fletcher
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an interim relief hearing in Birmingham on 26 February 2025, Employment Judge Camp heard Stephen Fletcher, who appeared in person, and Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group, represented by counsel. The decision records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons only to be provided if requested within 14 days.
The tribunal held that it was not "likely" for the purposes of section 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that, when the complaints to which the interim relief application related were determined, the tribunal would find that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was one of the reasons specified in section 100(1) or section 103A of the Act. The claimant's application for interim relief was therefore refused. The written record does not identify the underlying factual basis of the complaint beyond those statutory references, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Interim relief application under section 129 ERA 1996 refused. The written record does not identify which section 100(1) ground or grounds, if any, were relied on in addition to section 103A. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.129 ERA 1996
- s.100(1) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
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.