Case 1601137/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Christian Mallon v Gap Technical Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601137/2021
- Decision date
- 19 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Algazy KC
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Christian Mallon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on an application to strike out the claim and/or for a deposit order. The hearing was at Birmingham via CVP on 19 September 2023 before Employment Judge Algazy KC, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. It also dismissed the claim, further and/or alternatively, under Rule 37(1)(a) on the ground that it was vexatious.
Oral reasons were given at the hearing. The extracted text does not include any separate liability findings on the underlying substantive claim or any monetary remedy, and no award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not specify the substantive cause or causes of action. It records that the claim was dismissed on an application to strike out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospects of success and, further or alternatively, because it was vexatious. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 62(3)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.