Case 1309359/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1309359/2022
- Decision date
- 6 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 6 September 2023 before Employment Judge Gaskell, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims were struck out in their entirety under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided.
The tribunal also dealt separately with any breach of contract claim, dismissing it for want of jurisdiction under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The respondent's application for costs was refused under Rule 76. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The written judgment does not set out the underlying pleaded allegation(s) separately, but the case was listed by GOV.UK under Race Discrimination. The tribunal struck out the entirety of the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Any claim for breach of contract was dismissed for want of jurisdiction under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Rule 76 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.