Case 1800202/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ibeziako v Kerri Milner and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1800202/2021
- Decision date
- 4 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Ibeziako
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis record is a remote preliminary hearing held by telephone before Employment Judge D N Jones on 30 April 2021. The judgment states that the respondents applied to strike out the claims on the grounds that the manner in which they had been pursued was scandalous, vexatious or otherwise unreasonable, or that they had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal refused the respondents' strike-out applications. It also refused the claimant's application to strike out the response on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No further reasons, findings of fact, liability conclusions, or remedy award are recorded in this short judgment, which is confined to those procedural applications.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The record is a preliminary hearing judgment only. It states that the respondents' applications to strike out the claims, and the claimant's application to strike out the response, were both refused. The underlying substantive claims are not identified in this excerpt, so no merits outcome is recorded here. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- scandalous, vexatious or otherwise unreasonable
- no 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.