Case 1307509/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Bradley v ECM (Vehicle Delivery Service) Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1307509/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Power Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Bradley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claim on the basis that the manner in which proceedings had been conducted by the claimant was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious under Rule 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The Tribunal refused that application.
The claimant also applied to strike out the respondent's response on the same Rule 38(1)(b) grounds. That application was refused, as were the claimant's applications for costs under Rule 74 and wasted costs under Rule 78. A separate Case Management Order was provided to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claim under Rule 38(1)(b) was refused. The substantive listed claims were not adjudicated in this preliminary hearing judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response under Rule 38(1)(b) was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claimant's applications for costs under Rule 74 and wasted costs under Rule 78 were refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 74
- Rule 78
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.