Case 2300722/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss H Edwards, (2) Ms L Sandor v Mr J Mason — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300722/2023
- Decision date
- 28 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Miss H Edwards, (2) Ms L Sandor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 19 June 2023, the Tribunal gave the Claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim against Mr J Mason should not be struck out under rule 37 because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal recorded that it did not appear that Mr Mason was the Claimants' employer and that it was unclear how the claims in the matter could be pursued against him.
The Claimants did not make sufficient representations to oppose strike out or request a hearing. The Tribunal said that their claims could only be brought against their employer, and not against a director of the employer, and therefore struck out the claim against Mr J Mason. The judgment states that the claims against the other Respondents were not affected.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out the claims against Mr J Mason. It does not identify a substantive standalone cause of action in the reasons; the strike out was because he did not appear to be the Claimants' employer and the Tribunal said the claims could only be brought against the employer, not a director of the employer. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- 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.
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.