Case 2300225/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Gaskell v TOTO Energy Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300225/2019
- Decision date
- 15 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Gaskell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a judgment sent to the parties on 28 October 2019, Employment Judge Holmes struck out the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract under rule 37(1)(a) of the 2013 Rules of Procedure. The reasons recorded that the Tribunal had earlier given the claimant an opportunity to explain why those claims should not be struck out on the basis that he was never an employee of the respondent and, even if he was, he lacked qualifying service for unfair dismissal, so the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
The judgment states that the claimant failed to make representations in writing, or failed to make any sufficient representations, in response to that order. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims. No monetary award was made.
The Tribunal recorded that the claimant's remaining claims were unaffected by this judgment and would be considered further at the preliminary hearing listed for 20 November 2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a) after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations in response to the Tribunal's order; the stated reasons included that he was never an employee of the respondent and, in any event, lacked qualifying service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a) after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations in response to the Tribunal's order; the Tribunal said the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(a) of the 2013 Rules of Procedure
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.