Case 2217495/2024 · Employment Tribunal
ABC v Dexters London Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2217495/2024
- Decision date
- 29 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
ABC
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in public on 27 May 2025 before Employment Judge Emery, the first and second respondents applied under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) to strike out the claimant's s.13 TUPE Regulations claim for failure to consult on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. They also sought a deposit order under Rule 40(1)(a) in relation to that claim on the basis that it had little reasonable prospects of success. Both applications failed, so the TUPE claim was not struck out and no deposit order was made.
The second respondent also applied under Rule 38(1)(a) and Rule 40(1)(a) in respect of an Equality Act 2010 s.26 claim for harassment related to disability. Those applications also failed. The claimant's separate application to amend the claim to add wrongful dismissal failed because it was reasonably practicable to bring that claim within the primary limitation period. The judgment records no merits determination and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The first and second respondents applied under Rule 38(1)(a) to strike out the s.13 TUPE Regulations failure-to-consult claim and under Rule 40(1)(a) for a deposit order; both applications failed, so the claim was not struck out at this stage. | Other | — | — |
| Harassment | Equality Act 2010 s.26 harassment related to disability. The second respondent's applications under Rule 38(1)(a) and Rule 40(1)(a) failed, so the tribunal did not determine the merits of the claim in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 40(1)(a)
- reasonably practicable to bring the claim within the primary limitation period
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.