Case 2216628/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Ogg, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216628/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr T Ogg, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered the respondents' applications to strike out parts of the claims or alternatively to require deposits. By the time of the hearing, the respondents were no longer pursuing a without prejudice point and the claimant had withdrawn claims against the fourth, sixth and seventh respondents.
The tribunal refused to strike out or order deposits for the protected disclosure arguments, the age discrimination claim, and the claims against the third and fifth respondents. It held that the matters were sufficiently arguable and fact-sensitive, including issues about protected disclosures, alleged age-related remarks, the fifth respondent's involvement in board decisions, and the relationship between the third and fifth respondents.
The judgment did not decide the merits of the underlying unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, direct age discrimination or victimisation claims, and made no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing judgment refused strike out or deposit applications; merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary hearing judgment refused strike out or deposit applications concerning protected disclosures and whistleblowing-related claims; merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment refused strike out or deposit applications; merits of the direct age discrimination claim were not determined. | Other | Age | — |
| Victimisation | Preliminary hearing judgment refused strike out or deposit applications; merits of the victimisation claim were not determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Schedule 1 rule 38(a) ET Rules of Procedure 2024
- Schedule 1 rule 40 ET Rules of Procedure 2024
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- A v B and C
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Equality Act 2010 s112
- Allaway v Reilly
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s103A
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s47B
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s43B
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.