Case 1802605/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Grufik v Linbrooke Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802605/2022
- Decision date
- 15 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Grufik
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing held at Sheffield by CVP on 15 December 2022 before Employment Judge Brain, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by a consultant. The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success, and under Rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that they were not being actively pursued.
The tribunal refused both applications. It held that it could not be said that the claimant's claims had no reasonable prospect of success, and it also refused the application based on non-pursuit. The judgment therefore preserved the claims for дальнейшее case management and did not make any findings on the substantive merits of the underlying claims.
The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No remedy was awarded at this stage, and the judgment contains no substantive determination of liability.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not determine the merits of the race discrimination claim. At this preliminary hearing, the respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(a) and Rule 37(1)(d) were refused. | Other | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. At this preliminary hearing, the respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(a) and Rule 37(1)(d) were refused. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not determine the merits of the unlawful deduction from wages claim. At this preliminary hearing, the respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(a) and Rule 37(1)(d) were refused. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
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.