Case 1402580/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Carr v Step One — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402580/2022
- Decision date
- 13 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Carr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Exeter on 2 September 2022, Employment Judge Midgley heard the respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s interim relief application on limitation grounds under s.128 ERA 1996, together with the claimant’s interim relief application. The written record notes that the hearing was conducted in person and that reasons had been given orally.
The tribunal dismissed the respondent’s strike-out application, finding that the claimant’s interim relief application had been presented within the statutory time limit. It then dismissed the claimant’s interim relief application under s.128 ERA 1996.
The decision records no monetary award. It also records that the claims would proceed to the telephone case management preliminary hearing as listed. The written record states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days of sending the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s interim relief application as out of time was dismissed. The tribunal found that the application was presented within the time limit in s.128 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant’s application for interim relief under s.128 ERA 1996 was dismissed, and the claims were directed to proceed to the telephone case management preliminary hearing as listed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.128 ERA 1996
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.