Case 2201717/2022 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201717/2022
- Decision date
- 18 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Tribunal
- Panel members
- B Tyson, S Williams
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in public at London Central on 17 and 18 October 2023, comprised Employment Judge P Klimov with tribunal members B Tyson and S Williams. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms A Greenley of counsel.
The written judgment records only that the claimant's claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(e) because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing in respect of it. No merits findings are set out in the written record provided.
The note to the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard tribunal note. The written record therefore does not include any further factual findings, remedy assessment, or split between individual heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment records that the claimant's claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(e) because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing in respect of it. The judgment does not identify separate outcomes for any individual claim heads. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(e)
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.