Case 2202745/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Toland v Lock and Marlborough Solicitors — 2022
- Case reference
- 2202745/2020
- Decision date
- 10 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Walker Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Toland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 10 February 2022 at London Central by CVP, Employment Judge N Walker considered the respondent's application dated 19 November 2021 and the claimant's representations in response. The judgment records a single outcome: the claimant's claims were all struck out under rule 37.
The written record does not set out separate findings for any individual claim and does not record any monetary award. It also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records a global strike-out under rule 37 and does not give claim-specific reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records a global strike-out under rule 37 and does not give claim-specific reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records a global strike-out under rule 37 and does not give claim-specific reasons. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a global strike-out under rule 37 and does not give claim-specific reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records a global strike-out under rule 37 and does not give claim-specific reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records a global strike-out under rule 37 and does not give claim-specific reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.