Case 1300631/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1300631/2018
- Decision date
- 9 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr J A Boulton, Mr C Dodds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Birmingham on 6 December 2019 before Employment Judge Lloyd, with Mr J A Boulton and Mr C Dodds as members. On the Respondent's application, it dismissed the Claimant's claims in their entirety under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, on the ground that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
The extracted judgment does not set out the underlying allegations or make separate liability findings on each pleaded head of claim. It records that no costs order was made or applied for by the Respondent, and there was no monetary award because the claims were dismissed at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The extracted judgment does not set out the individual grounds or particulars of the claim; classification as age discrimination follows the case listing/context provided with the case. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment does not set out the individual grounds or particulars of the claim; classification as unfair dismissal follows the case listing/context provided with the case. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.