Case 1802419/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person with Mr Morris For the v Mr Ashwood (solicitor) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802419/2023
- Decision date
- 20 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person with Mr Morris For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 20 October 2023, Employment Judge Davies struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the Claimant had not worked for the Respondent for two years and the Tribunal therefore said it had no jurisdiction to hear that claim. The judgment does not record any remedy because the claim did not proceed.
The complaints of victimisation and harassment by association were also struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success. In relation to victimisation, the Claimant accepted that she had not done a protected act. In relation to harassment by association, she agreed that she was not advancing any different complaint under that heading.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Claimant had not worked for the Respondent for two years, so the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success; the Claimant accepted that she had not done a protected act. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | Struck out as 'harassment by association' because it had no reasonable prospect of success; the Claimant said she was not advancing any different complaint under that heading. | Struck out | — | — |
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.