Case 2213509/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Barnett v Lift and Load London Limited — 2024

Case reference: 2213509/2023
Decision date: 22 August 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Forde REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Barnett

Respondent

Lift and Load London Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing in public on 16 August 2024 before Employment Judge Forde at London Central by CVP. The judgment dealt only with interlocutory applications in claims numbered 2213509/2023 and 2216645/2023; it did not determine the substantive merits of the underlying employment claims.

The respondent's strike out application was refused on all three grounds advanced. The tribunal held that the time-limit point should be determined at the final hearing, rejected the submission that the claimant's complaints were criminal complaints because they were matters requiring factual evaluation by the tribunal, and refused the application under Rule 37(1)(a) as premature because there had not yet been a proper analysis of the pleadings and relevant core documents.

The respondent's application for a deposit order was also refused for the same procedural reason. No substantive remedies were awarded or assessed in this judgment, and the written record states that the tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The respondent's application to strike out the claim on the basis that it was presented outside the relevant statutory time limits was refused. The tribunal said that issue would be decided at the final hearing.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The respondent's application to strike out the claim on the basis that the claimant's complaints were criminal complaints, and on the basis of no reasonable prospects of success under Rule 37(1)(a), was refused. The tribunal held that the allegations were matters for factual evaluation and that the reasonable-prospects application was premature because there had not yet been a proper analysis of the pleadings and relevant core documents.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The respondent's application for a deposit order was refused. The tribunal held that it was premature for the same reason: there had not yet been a proper analysis of the pleadings and relevant core documents.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.