Case 1405960/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Ian Crockford v Eurotherm Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405960/2019
- Decision date
- 11 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Walters Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Ian Crockford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol by CVP on 7 May 2021 before Employment Judge Walters, with Mr Ian Crockford appearing in person and Eurotherm Limited represented by Mr Parsons, solicitor. The only judgment recorded is that the claimant's proceedings were struck out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that they had no reasonable prospects of success.
The judgment does not contain separate findings on any underlying pleaded claim, and it does not record liability findings or a remedy assessment. The proceedings were therefore disposed of at strike-out stage, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claimant's proceedings were struck out under rule 37 for no reasonable prospects of success. It does not separate findings by individual claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant's proceedings were struck out under rule 37 for no reasonable prospects of success. It does not separate findings by individual claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the claimant's proceedings were struck out under rule 37 for no reasonable prospects of success. It does not separate findings by individual claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37 no reasonable prospects 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.