Case 2216904/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216904/2023
- Decision date
- 18 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in London Central on 9 July 2024 before Employment Judge Glennie, the tribunal dealt with a victimisation complaint concerning a reference provided in October 2023. That complaint was struck out under rule 37 because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal also decided that it had jurisdiction to hear the remaining complaints under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010, because they were presented within such period as the tribunal considered just and equitable. No merits findings were made on those remaining complaints at this hearing, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation relating to the provision of a reference in October 2023 was struck out under rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the remaining complaints under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 because they were presented within such period as the tribunal thought just and equitable; no merits decision was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 just and equitable
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.