Case 2200598/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200598/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Spencer
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's strike-out application. The tribunal referred to Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and to Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union, noting that discrimination claims should not be struck out except in the most obvious cases and that the claimant's case should be considered at its highest. It also recorded the different tests for strike-out and for a deposit order.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender reassignment discrimination | Dismissed following withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Not struck out and listed to proceed to a hearing, subject to compliance with the unless order made at the hearing. No merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claimant said this was a claim for three months' notice pay. It was not struck out and was allowed to proceed subject to compliance with the unless order. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Not struck out at this stage. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not complied with the order requiring clarification of the amount claimed for holiday pay, and warned the claim would stand dismissed without further order if the unless order was not met. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Not struck out at this stage. The tribunal noted non-compliance with the order requiring the claimant to state how much was claimed for unpaid wages, and warned the claim would stand dismissed without further order if the unless order was not met. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found no detriment on the pleaded ill-health retirement point because the claimant said she was fit to return in the short term and would not have been entitled to ill-health retirement; she was also already entitled to access her pension without actuarial reduction at 67. To the extent the claim was that she should have worked until 70 to accrue more pension, the tribunal said that was a remedy issue on the unfair dismissal claim. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 37(1)(a) strike out
- Rule 37(1)(c) non-compliance
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union and anor
- little 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.