Case 1401196/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Ms T. Nestour (Solicitor) PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401196/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Smail at Exeter by video on 11 May 2023. The tribunal made a single operative decision: all claims were struck out as an abuse of process.
The reason given was that the COT3 dated 23 December 2021 was enforceable and prevented the bringing of the claims. Full oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the judgment states that any party seeking written reasons had to apply within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not list the individual claim headings in the extracted text; this claim type is taken from the case context/listing. It was struck out because the tribunal found the COT3 dated 23 December 2021 was enforceable and precluded the bringing of the claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment does not list the individual claim headings in the extracted text; this claim type is taken from the case context/listing. It was struck out because the tribunal found the COT3 dated 23 December 2021 was enforceable and precluded the bringing of the claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not list the individual claim headings in the extracted text; this discrimination claim is taken from the case context/listing. It was struck out because the tribunal found the COT3 dated 23 December 2021 was enforceable and precluded the bringing of the claims. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.