Case 1602264/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr SA Sullivan v Kepak Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602264/2023
- Decision date
- 26 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Russell Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr SA Sullivan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was heard at Cardiff on 25 March 2024 before Employment Judge R Russell. The judgment records only procedural rulings on the Respondent's applications: the application to strike out the claim failed and was dismissed, and the application for a deposit order also failed and was dismissed.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claim, and no remedy award, are recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the Respondent's application to strike out the claim failed and was dismissed. It does not set out any substantive merits determination of the underlying claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records that the Respondent's application for a deposit order failed and was dismissed. It does not record any deposit ordered or any substantive merits determination of the underlying claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.