Case 1406261/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Mallon v Highfield Professional Solutions Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024

Case reference: 1406261/2023
Decision date: 31 December 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Livesey Appearances

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Mallon

Respondent

Highfield Professional Solutions Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a record of a preliminary hearing held at Bristol by video on 19 December 2024 before Employment Judge Livesey, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel. The tribunal dealt with the claimant's complaint of harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act.

That harassment complaint was dismissed under rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment does not record any award of compensation or other remedy in relation to that complaint.

The tribunal stated that the remaining complaints would proceed in accordance with the Order of event date and the order of 5 November 2024. No further substantive findings on those remaining complaints are set out in this record.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Harassment	The complaint of harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act was dismissed under rule 37 as having no reasonable prospects of success.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.