Case 2200339/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Simret, employed barrister For the v Mr R Aireton, solicitor — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200339/2019
- Decision date
- 20 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Simret, employed barrister For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Davidson at London Central on 19 August 2019. The tribunal dealt only with strike-out issues, not the merits of the remaining claims.
The judgment records that the claimant's claims of unfair constructive dismissal, discrimination and paternity pay were struck out because they were either not being actively pursued or, alternatively, had no reasonable prospect of success. The extracted text does not set out the factual basis of the discrimination claim or any remedy issues.
The tribunal directed that the claimant's remaining claims would be heard on 8 November 2019. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Struck out at the preliminary hearing as not being actively pursued or, alternatively, having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to discrimination claims only in general terms; the basis of the discrimination claim is not specified in the extracted text. It was struck out as not being actively pursued or, alternatively, having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The paternity pay claim was struck out at the preliminary hearing as not being actively pursued or, alternatively, having no reasonable prospect of success. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.