Case 1804127/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Mr D Stokes (solicitor) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804127/2023
- Decision date
- 15 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing by telephone before Employment Judge Davies on 15 September 2023. The claimant did not attend. The respondent was represented by Mr D Stokes, solicitor.
The claimant had named two respondents, Leviat CHR Co and Leviat Ltd. The tribunal recorded that Leviat CHR Co is not a legal entity and has no contract with the claimant. On that basis, all complaints against the first respondent were struck out.
Leviat Ltd admitted that the claimant was engaged by it as an agency worker. The tribunal said that, to the extent the claims were properly brought against the hirer in the agency worker relationship, the correct respondent was Leviat Ltd. The complaints against the second respondent therefore continued in accordance with the case management orders made at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Underlying particulars are not set out in this preliminary judgment. The complaints against Leviat CHR Co were struck out because it is not a legal entity and the tribunal found they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Underlying particulars are not set out in this preliminary judgment. The complaints against Leviat CHR Co were struck out because it is not a legal entity and the tribunal found they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Other | This appears to correspond to the health and safety complaint category from the case listing. The complaints against Leviat CHR Co were struck out because it is not a legal entity and the tribunal found they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Underlying particulars are not set out in this preliminary judgment. The complaints against Leviat CHR Co were struck out because it is not a legal entity and the tribunal found they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underlying particulars are not set out in this preliminary judgment. The complaints against Leviat CHR Co were struck out because it is not a legal entity and the tribunal found they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.
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.