Case 2201166/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Dawson v Cabinet Office — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201166/2019
- Decision date
- 27 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Professor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Dawson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was listed for a preliminary hearing to determine whether the claim should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, or whether a deposit order of up to £1,000 should be made. The claimant did not attend and was not represented; the respondent was represented by counsel.
The claimant's ET1 described a wages claim based on a proportion of annual remuneration of £73,584,885,328 from 27 January 2019. The Tribunal noted the claimant's statement that his service was ongoing despite no contact from the government and no agreed contract of employment.
Having considered the ET1 and the respondent's submissions, the Employment Judge found no evidence that the claimant was or had been a worker employed by the respondent within the Employment Rights Act 1996. In the absence of further evidence and with the claimant not attending to explain the basis of the claim, the Tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out in its entirety under Rule 37.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was expressed as a payment of wages due. It was struck out at a preliminary hearing as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 23(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.