Case 2300518/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Manders v Dogs Trust Trustee Ltd Preliminary hearing at: Ashford — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300518/2018
- Decision date
- 3 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Manders
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Ashford on 3 January 2019, Employment Judge Pritchard considered the respondent's application that the claimant's claims for direct sex discrimination, direct age discrimination, harassment related to sex and/or age, detriment for having made public interest disclosures, and detriment for having raised matters relating to health and safety should either be struck out under Rule 37 or made subject to a deposit order under Rule 39. The tribunal refused that application, so those claims were not struck out at this stage.
The claimant's claim for unpaid wages was treated differently. The tribunal struck that claim out under Rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. No monetary award was made in the judgment, which dealt only with the preliminary strike-out and deposit application rather than the merits of the surviving claims.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Respondent's application to strike out the claim, or alternatively require a deposit, was refused under Rule 37/39. | Other | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Respondent's application to strike out the claim, or alternatively require a deposit, was refused under Rule 37/39. | Other | Age | — |
| Harassment | Claim described as harassment related to sex and/or age; the respondent's strike-out/deposit application was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriment for having made public interest disclosures; respondent's strike-out/deposit application was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Claim for detriment for having raised matters relating to health and safety; respondent's strike-out/deposit application was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid wages was struck out under Rule 37 because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37
- Rule 39
- no reasonable prospects 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.
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.