Case 2300177/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J. Bootle v 1) Sodexo Limited 2) Forth & Oban Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300177/2022
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
- Venue
- London South ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J. Bootle
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal amended the Second Respondent’s name to Forth & Oban Limited. It then dismissed the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim because he did not have the requisite period of qualifying service, and the Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear that claim.
The Claimant’s race discrimination claims against both Respondents were struck out. In each case, the Tribunal found that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant did not have the requisite period of qualifying service, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination claim against the First Respondent was found to have no reasonable prospects of success and was struck out. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination claim against the Second Respondent (amended to Forth & Oban Limited) was found to have no reasonable prospects of success and was struck out. | Struck out | Race | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.