Case 1602383/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Carl Miller-Ruck v Sportswift Limited (Trading as “Card Factory”) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602383/2024
- Decision date
- 15 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Carl Miller-Ruck
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a video hearing in Cardiff on 11 October 2024, Employment Judge S Jenkins dealt with the Claimant’s complaints against Sportswift Limited trading as Card Factory. The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal also struck out the sex discrimination complaint and the sexual orientation discrimination complaint, each on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success whether considered as direct discrimination or harassment. The written record does not identify any separate remedy because none was awarded in this decision.
The only complaint said to survive this strike-out decision was harassment related to age. The tribunal stated that this complaint could proceed, and that it had been made the subject of a separate deposit order. No final merits finding on that complaint is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said this complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal said the complaint, whether considered as direct discrimination or harassment, had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The tribunal said the complaint, whether considered as direct discrimination or harassment, had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | The judgment said this was the only complaint which could proceed and that it had been made the subject of a separate deposit order; no final merits outcome is recorded in this decision. | Other | Age | — |
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.