Case 2204813/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204813/2018
- Decision date
- 21 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 21 April 2023 at London Central, Employment Judge Glennie heard the claimant, who was in person, and the respondent, represented by Mr J Small of counsel. The judgment records a preliminary hearing only. The claimant's application to amend the claim, made on 6 December 2021, was refused.
The tribunal then struck out the claim on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The written record does not set out any substantive merits findings, liability findings, or remedy assessment. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This was a preliminary hearing decision. The written record does not identify the underlying substantive claim type(s); it records only that the claimant's application to amend the claim made on 6 December 2021 was refused and that the claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.