Case 1403821/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Adrian Naylor For the v Mr Allan Roberts Counsel — 2022

Case reference: 1403821/2021
Decision date: 15 December 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hogarth Appearances

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Adrian Naylor For the

Respondent

Mr Allan Roberts Counsel

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

In Megan Anderson v Hugh Sims-Hilditch and Hildare Stud Farm Ltd, heard at Southampton by VHS on 7 December 2022, Employment Judge Hogarth struck out the claims against the first respondent because the tribunal found that the claimant's correct employer was the second respondent. The judgment does not set out the underlying claim types in the extracted text.

The claims against the second respondent were also struck out. The tribunal found that when Hildare Stud Farm Ltd was added as a party on 30 August 2022, the claims were out of time and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented them in time. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment does not identify the underlying claim type(s). The claims against the first respondent were struck out because the tribunal found the claimant's correct employer was the second respondent. The claims against the second respondent were struck out because, when that respondent was added on 30 August 2022, the claims were out of time and it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time.	Struck out	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.