Case 1404026/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Coldridge v Just Family Law Ltd Heard: By CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404026/2021
- Decision date
- 20 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Craft Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Coldridge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 29 November 2022 before Employment Judge Craft, the Claimant's sex and age discrimination claims were recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. The judgment does not determine those claims on their merits.
The Claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, the Claimant not having sufficient continuity of employment with the Respondent. The claim brought under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging dismissal for making protected disclosures, was struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal ordered the Claimant to pay costs limited to £1,000 to the Respondent. No separate compensation, injury to feelings, or interest award was set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claim as the Claimant did not have sufficient continuity of employment with the Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- sufficient continuity of employment
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- no 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.