Case 1302230/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Loftus v Jaguar Land Rover Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1302230/2022
- Decision date
- 8 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Loftus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Flood at Birmingham on 23 September 2024 to consider the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's complaints. The claimant, formerly a Fleet Issue Management and Defect Engineer employed by Jaguar Land Rover Limited from 20 March 2020 until 9 December 2021, had brought complaints of unfair dismissal, age and disability discrimination, together with a complaint relating to the transfer valuation of his pension. Proceedings had previously been stayed pending the outcome of the claimant's appeal to the Pensions Ombudsman regarding the rejection (later overturned) of his ill health early retirement claim.
The Tribunal issued a strike out judgment in respect of the claimant's complaint of direct age discrimination, holding that it had no reasonable prospects of success and striking it out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment also records the case management context, including the respondent's two bundles, the claimant's difficulties accessing documents (which he attributed to malware/cyber attacks), and the claimant's distress during the hearing.
The remaining unfair dismissal and disability discrimination (reasonable adjustments) complaints were not disposed of by this judgment; the document sets out a list of issues for those claims to be determined at a future hearing. No monetary award was made. The middle portion of the PDF text was truncated in the source material provided for extraction, so the tribunal's detailed reasoning on the strike out decision could not be reviewed in full.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination complaint struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospects of success. PDF text was truncated in the middle, so the tribunal's full reasoning on this point was not visible. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.