Case 2215259/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Lain v Deloitte LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2215259/2023
- Decision date
- 20 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Appearances
- Venue
- in public
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Lain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was converted from a full merits hearing into a public preliminary hearing to determine several applications. The Tribunal refused the Claimant's application under Rule 20 and refused the Claimant's application for the Respondent's response to be struck out under Rule 37.
The Tribunal allowed an unopposed amendment which meant the expenses claim was treated as brought under Section 15 ERA 1996 rather than Section 13 ERA 1996. The Tribunal struck out that expenses claim because the Claimant was not alleging that the Respondent had received any payment from him, and because Section 16 ERA excluded protection in respect of overpaid expenses incurred in carrying out employment.
The Tribunal also stated that, had the amendment not been accepted, it would have struck out the expenses claim under Section 13 ERA because Section 27 ERA excludes expenses from the definition of wages.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims in respect of expenses payments pursuant to Section 15 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The prompt text is truncated, so this extraction is limited to the stated preliminary judgment outcome. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
- Section 15 ERA 1996
- Section 16 ERA 1996
- Section 27 ERA 1996
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.