Case 2202382/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202382/2019
- Decision date
- 6 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in London Central on 6 December 2019, Employment Judge Joffe heard the respondent's application under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure to strike out the claimant's claims. That application was refused. The judgment does not set out substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claims; it records only the procedural refusal.
The respondent also applied for a deposit order under rule 39 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. That application was refused as well. The judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment does not decide the merits of the age discrimination claim; it only refuses the respondent's strike-out application under rule 37(1)(a). | Other | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not decide the merits of the disability discrimination claim; it only refuses the respondent's strike-out application under rule 37(1)(a). | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.