Case 1301276/2022 · Employment Tribunal
W v Interserve Group Ltd and 6 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1301276/2022
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar
- Panel members
- Mr K Palmer, Mr S Woodall
Parties
8 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal proceeded with the hearing in the claimant's absence under Rule 47. The hearing took place by CVP at Midlands West on 10 and 12 December 2025 before Employment Judge Akhtar, Mr K Palmer and Mr S Woodall.
The unanimous judgment struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(b) and (e). The judgment states that this was because the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious and because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. Reasons were given orally, and no written reasons are included in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The short judgment struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(b) and (e). It did not give written merits findings; reasons were given orally. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The short judgment struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(b) and (e). It did not give written merits findings; reasons were given orally. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The short judgment struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(b) and (e). It did not give written merits findings; reasons were given orally. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The short judgment struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(b) and (e). It did not give written merits findings; reasons were given orally. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(b)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(e)
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.