Case 1311286/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1311286/2020
- Decision date
- 6 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Lloyd Signed
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing by CVP on 2 September 2021 before Employment Judge Lloyd, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's application to amend his claim in the terms set out in his further particulars of claim dated 7 May 2021. The order limited any further background information to the incident on 25 August 2020 and the disciplinary investigation and proceedings that followed, and it refused permission to plead wholly new information about alleged previous complaints about health and safety because that material was not relevant to the unfair dismissal claim as pleaded.
The tribunal required the claimant to provide further particulars of any allegation that the respondent breached the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, and it directed an amended response from the respondent. It also set directions for disclosure, witness statements, a neutral chronology, a list of names and roles, and a schedule of loss, and it listed a judicial mediation for 3 November 2021.
The final hearing of the unfair dismissal claim was relisted for 31 August, 1 and 2 September 2022 before an Employment Judge sitting alone. No liability or remedy determination was made in this judgment and order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's application to amend his claim in the terms set out in his further particulars of claim dated 7 May 2021. No substantive liability decision was made at this preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.