Case 1404246/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claire Buckley v Dutton Gregory LLP and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404246/2023
- Decision date
- 28 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Claire Buckley
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's written application for reconsideration of an earlier preliminary hearing decision. The application concerned the earlier dismissal of claims against individual respondents Andrew Witt, Mark Broad and Graham Carr.
Employment Judge Housego refused reconsideration because there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The judgment stated that the reconsideration application sought to reargue the decision to remove those individuals as respondents, and that this did not affect the claims themselves because the allegations against the first respondent were that it was liable for the actions of those individuals as members of the LLP.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | This reconsideration judgment did not determine the merits of the age discrimination claim. It refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of an earlier decision removing named individual respondents, and stated that the claims themselves were not affected. | Other | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | This reconsideration judgment did not determine the merits of the disability discrimination claim. It refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of an earlier decision removing named individual respondents, and stated that the claims themselves were not affected. | Other | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | This reconsideration judgment did not determine the merits of the sex discrimination claim. It refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of an earlier decision removing named individual respondents, and stated that the claims themselves were not affected. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 70 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 72 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
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.