Case 1305034/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305034/2020
- Decision date
- 5 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard strike-out applications on 2 September 2022. It refused the respondents' joint application dated 18 February 2022, finding that the claimant's claim was being actively pursued, and refused the first respondent's application dated 11 June 2021 because the claim did not have no reasonable prospect of success and had more than little reasonable prospect of success.
The second respondent's application dated 11 May 2021 succeeded. The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant's unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal (notice pay) claims against the second respondent because the claimant was not employed by that respondent, and those claims were accordingly struck out. The judgment did not determine the merits of any surviving claims against the first respondent and recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out as against the second respondent only; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant was not employed by the second respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | This was the claimant's notice pay claim against the second respondent. It was struck out because the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction, the claimant not being employed by the second respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- more than little reasonable prospect of success
- actively pursued
- jurisdiction
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.