Case 2209992/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr. E. Jorge v Bioren Ltd. Hearing: Final Merits Hearing — 2023

Case reference: 2209992/2023
Decision date: 3 November 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tinnion Appearances

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr. E. Jorge

Respondent

Bioren Ltd. Hearing: Final Merits Hearing

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the final merits hearing on 2 November 2023, Employment Judge Tinnion struck out the unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 to 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the breach of contract/notice pay claim, and the redundancy payment claim under section 164 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The reason given was that the Respondent had not dismissed Mr. Jorge and he remained one of its employees, so those claims had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37(1)(a).

The tribunal also dealt with a claim for 'other payments' that had been ticked on the ET1. That claim was withdrawn by Mr. Jorge at the hearing and was dismissed under Rule 52. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the Respondent had not dismissed the Claimant and he remained one of its employees.	Struck out	—	—
Breach of contract	Notice pay claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the Respondent had not dismissed the Claimant and he remained one of its employees.	Struck out	—	—
Redundancy	Redundancy payment claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the Respondent had not dismissed the Claimant and he remained one of its employees.	Struck out	—	—
Other	Claim for 'other payments' on the ET1 was dismissed under Rule 52 following withdrawal by the Claimant at the hearing.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.