Case 1801456/2024 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2025

Case reference: 1801456/2024
Decision date: 12 March 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge James Representation
Venue: Leeds

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a hearing on 12 March 2025 before Employment Judge James, after hearing submissions from the claimant and from Mr C Breen for the respondent, the tribunal struck out all of the claims under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The written record identifies the claims as age discrimination and whistle-blowing detriment/dismissal, brought under case numbers 1801456/2024, 1801457/2024, 1801459/2024 and 1802410/2024.

The judgment records that the decision was given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No substantive findings on liability, factual disputes, or remedy are set out in the written record, and no monetary award is recorded.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	The judgment states that the claims included age discrimination and that all of the claims were struck out and dismissed under Rule 38(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success.	Struck out	Age	—
Whistleblowing	The judgment states that the claims included whistle-blowing detriment/dismissal and that all of the claims were struck out and dismissed under Rule 38(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.