Case 1308669/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1308669/2023
- Decision date
- 8 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell Approved
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 8 January 2025, Employment Judge Gaskell determined the claimant's unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed pursuant to section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the redundancy payment claim was dismissed pursuant to section 155 of the same Act.
The tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination claim. It found that, at no time material to the claim, the claimant was not a disabled person as defined in the Equality Act 2010.
The claimant's race discrimination, age discrimination, sex discrimination and wrongful dismissal claims were struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that, at no time material to the claim, the claimant was not a disabled person as defined in the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Wrongful dismissal |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 38 Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
- Equality Act 2010 disability definition
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.