Case 2217777/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Sullivan v RTC Education Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217777/2024
- Decision date
- 7 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Millns Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Sullivan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the Claimant's application to strike out the Respondent's Response on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The application focused on the Respondent's pleaded reference to the Claimant not working on 14 January 2024, when the Respondent accepted that he had done some work that day and had been paid for it.
The tribunal found that, although paragraph 8 of the Response did not clearly reflect the Respondent's clarified position, the point was not determinative of the substantive pleaded claims. The tribunal concluded that this was not an exceptional case warranting strike out of the Response, and refused the application.
The judgment records that the claims as then pleaded were wrongful dismissal, direct race discrimination based on a perception that the Claimant was Irish or Northern Irish, and victimisation. Those substantive claims were not decided in this judgment. The Claimant also withdrew a complaint under s.104 ERA 1996, which was dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The adjudicated matter in this judgment was the Claimant's application to strike out the Respondent's Response under Rule 37(1)(a). The application was refused and the Response was not struck out. The substantive wrongful dismissal, race discrimination and victimisation claims were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The Claimant withdrew his complaint under s.104 ERA 1996 at the preliminary hearing, and the tribunal issued an order dismissing that claim upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College UKEAT/0343/10
- Tayside Public Transport Company Ltd (t/a Travel Dundee) v Reilly [2012] IRLR 755 (CS)
- ED & F Mann Liquid Products Ltd v Patel [2002] EWCA Civ 1550
- Romanowska v Aspirations Care Ltd UKEAT/0015/14
- two-stage basis for strike out
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.