Case 2300738/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kenealy (Solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300738/2019
- Decision date
- 27 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Kenealy (Solicitor) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South Employment Tribunal on 27 September 2019 before Employment Judge Hyams-Parish sitting alone. The claim was brought by Ms A Lupo against Modern British Canteen Limited. The written record identifies the decision as being made under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Tribunal struck out the claim because it had no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying complaint, and no remedy was awarded.
The note to the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. On the face of the written record, the only adjudicated outcome is strike out of the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was struck out under Rule 37 because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.