Case 1808709/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr M Clayton, Solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808709/2023
- Decision date
- 9 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing submissions from both parties and consideration of the preliminary hearing bundle, the tribunal amended the respondent's name by agreement to Copperfields Health Care Limited. The hearing was before Employment Judge James in Sheffield by video link on 7 May 2024.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's disability discrimination claim under ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 because it had no reasonable prospect of success. It also struck out the whistle-blowing detriment claim under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 on the same basis, applying Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. No remedy was awarded because both claims were struck out at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was found to have no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for whistle-blowing detriment under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 was found to have no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37, Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.