Case 2203769/2022 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2203769/2022
- Decision date
- 17 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr S Pearlman, Mr M Taj
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the start of the final hearing on 17 May 2023, Employment Judge Adkin sat with Mr S Pearlman and Mr M Taj. The claimant appeared in person and Ms J Smeaton, Counsel, appeared for the respondent.
The judgment states that the claimant had applied on the first morning of a three-day final hearing to amend his claim so as to particularise a claim against the Third Respondent, Mr Imran Majid. That application was refused.
Following that refusal, the tribunal struck out the claim against Mr Majid under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of the claim succeeding. The extracted judgment does not record any substantive findings on the underlying whistleblowing, race discrimination, or unfair dismissal allegations, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records a strike-out of the claim against the Third Respondent, Mr Imran Majid, under rule 37 after the claimant's application to amend his claim to particularise that claim was refused. The underlying substantive cause of action is not identified in the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of this claim succeeding
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.