Case 1401010/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J McAuley v Sse plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401010/2023
- Decision date
- 10 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J McAuley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a video hearing at Bristol Employment Tribunal on 8 May 2024 before Employment Judge J Bax, the tribunal made two orders. First, the Respondent's application to strike out the claim was dismissed. Second, by the Claimant's agreement, the Claimant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of a postponed final hearing and of chasing the Claimant for responses in relation to preparation of the final hearing, in the sum of £1,000.
The £1,000 costs sum was to be paid in two instalments of £500: the first on or before 5 June 2024 and the second on or before 3 July 2024. Written reasons were not provided as reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and no request for written reasons appears on the face of the record.
This written record does not adjudicate the substantive disability discrimination claim itself; it deals only with the strike-out application and a consent costs order. No remedy was awarded to the Claimant in this document.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | This written record only addresses two interlocutory matters: the Respondent's strike-out application (dismissed) and a costs order against the Claimant (£1,000 by agreement). The substantive disability discrimination claim itself is not adjudicated in this document; outcome recorded as 'other' to reflect that the underlying claim remained live following this hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | Respondent's application to strike out the claim was dismissed (paragraph 1 of the Judgment). | 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.