Case 1600624/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. T.V. Kirkhouse (C1) Mr. P. Lewis (C2) v Morganite Electrical Carbon Ltd HELD BY: CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600624/2021
- Decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. T.V. Kirkhouse (C1) Mr. P. Lewis (C2)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 4 January 2022, Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan dealt with the respondent's application for deposit orders in the two joined claims brought by Mr T.V. Kirkhouse and Mr P. Lewis against Morganite Electrical Carbon Ltd. The respondent said the claims had little reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal dismissed the application. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons were requested, so the extract records only the outcome of the interlocutory application and not any merits findings on the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Joined claim 1600624/2021: the respondent's application for deposit orders on the basis that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success was dismissed; no merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Joined claim 1600625/2021: the respondent's application for deposit orders on the basis that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success was dismissed; no merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.