Case 1403939/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Thomson v Horfield Care Ltd. — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403939/2021
- Decision date
- 14 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Le Grys
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Thomson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Bristol by CVP on 25 March 2022 before Employment Judge Le Grys, the respondent applied to strike out three claims. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, so no further written reasons were provided unless requested in time.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's breach of contract claim relating to expenses and the breach of contract claim relating to a pay rise. In each case, the application succeeded on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, and the strike-out was made under Rule 37(1)(a).
The respondent's strike-out application in relation to the unauthorised deduction from wages claim was dismissed. However, the tribunal accepted the alternative application that the claimant should pay a deposit in order to pursue that claim, because it had little reasonable prospect of success. The deposit order itself was recorded as being contained in a separate order.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Strike-out application succeeded in relation to the breach of contract (expenses) claim under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Strike-out application succeeded in relation to the breach of contract (pay rise) claim under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The strike-out application was dismissed for this claim, but the tribunal granted the respondent's alternative application for a deposit order because the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. The deposit order terms were set out in a separate order. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
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.