Case 2201188/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Grubb 1st v London United Busways Limited 2nd Respondent: RATP Dev UK Limited 3rd Respondent: David Bushnell 4th Respondent: Kelly Rahman — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201188/2021
- Decision date
- 24 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Grubb 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Nicolle sat alone at London Central in private in chambers on 24 August 2021 and dealt with preliminary respondent issues rather than the merits of the underlying claims. The tribunal struck out the claim against the 2nd Respondent, RATP Dev UK Limited, because the Claimant's correct employer was the 1st Respondent, London United Busways Limited, and that position was acknowledged by the 1st Respondent.
The tribunal also struck out the claims against the 3rd and 4th Respondents, David Bushnell and Kelly Rahman, because the Claimant had not undertaken ACAS early conciliation against them. For avoidance of doubt, the claims against the 1st Respondent were allowed to proceed to a full merits hearing. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim against the 2nd Respondent, RATP Dev UK Limited, was struck out because the Claimant's correct employer was the 1st Respondent, London United Busways Limited, which the 1st Respondent acknowledged. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The claims against the 3rd and 4th Respondents, David Bushnell and Kelly Rahman, were struck out because the Claimant had failed to undertake ACAS early conciliation against them. | 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.
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.