Case 1307647/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Callis v Alfa Coaches Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1307647/2024
- Decision date
- 21 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Noons Appearances
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Callis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a preliminary hearing case management order, not a final merits judgment. The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claims; that application did not succeed. The tribunal went on to consider the merits at a preliminary stage and found that the claimant's complaints set out at paragraphs 16.1 and 21.1 of the agreed list of issues had little reasonable prospect of success.
On that basis the tribunal made a deposit order requiring the claimant to pay £250 for each of those claims as a condition of continuing with them, with details set out in a separate deposit order document. The hearing took place at Midlands West Employment Tribunal by CVP on 21 January 2026 before Employment Judge Noons sitting alone. No final outcomes on the underlying age discrimination or breach of contract claims are recorded in this document.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Preliminary hearing case management order, not a final determination. The respondent's strike-out application did not succeed; however the tribunal found the complaints under paragraphs 16.1 and 21.1 of the agreed list of issues had little reasonable prospect of success and made a deposit order of £250 per claim to continue. The judgment does not specify which listed claim heads (age discrimination vs breach of contract) the deposit-ordered paragraphs correspond to, so the allocation between this claim and the breach of contract claim is unclear. | Other | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | Preliminary hearing case management order, not a final determination. Strike-out refused; deposit order of £250 per claim made in respect of paragraphs 16.1 and 21.1 of the agreed list of issues, which the tribunal found had little reasonable prospect of success. Specific mapping of paragraph numbers to this claim head is not stated in the document text. | Other | — | — |
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.