Case 1403682/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Rayner (by his litigation friend, Mr Geoffrey Rayner) v Ministry of Defence — 2024
- Case reference
- 1403682/2023
- Decision date
- 21 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beever
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Rayner (by his litigation friend, Mr Geoffrey Rayner)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was before Employment Judge Beever sitting alone by CVP on 3 October 2024. The tribunal appointed Mr Geoffrey Rayner as litigation friend for Mr Michael Rayner after being satisfied that the claimant did not have capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to conduct the proceedings, and that appointment was just and appropriate.
The judgment records that the claimant's claims had no reasonable prospects of success. On that basis, the claims were struck out and dismissed. The written judgment does not set out separate factual findings on the merits of the individual claims, and it does not record any award or remedy.
Oral reasons were given on 4 September 2024, and the written judgment was signed on 7 October 2024 and sent to the parties on 21 October 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant's claims had no reasonable prospects of success and were struck out and dismissed; the text does not separately explain the breach of contract claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's claims had no reasonable prospects of success and were struck out and dismissed; the text does not separately explain the unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.