Case 2206536/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206536/2021
- Decision date
- 25 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written judgment records that the respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(a), 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules. That application was dismissed. The record does not set out any substantive findings on the underlying merits claims; it deals only with the interlocutory applications before the tribunal.
The respondent also applied for costs under Rule 76(1)(a). That application succeeded on the basis of the claimant's unreasonable conduct, and the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £100 by 4pm on 22 September 2022. The judgment note states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(a), 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d) was dismissed. No substantive claim was determined in the written record provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's costs application under Rule 76(1)(a) succeeded because of the claimant's unreasonable conduct; the claimant was ordered to pay £100. | Upheld | — | £100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £100
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 76(1)(a)
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.