Case 2301141/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Samuel Martins For the v Mrs Beattie (litigation manager) — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301141/2018
- Decision date
- 18 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster Appearance
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Samuel Martins For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Webster sitting alone at London South on 17 September 2019. The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claims and, alternatively, for deposit orders. The tribunal did not uphold the strike-out application.
The tribunal also did not uphold the deposit-order application generally, but it made a deposit order of £50 in respect of the claim for failure to provide written terms of employment in contravention of section 1 ERA 1996. The judgment records that the deposit order applied to that claim only. No substantive determination of the underlying claims was made in the written record, and reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out application and refused the deposit-order application except in relation to the claim for failure to provide written terms of employment in contravention of section 1 ERA 1996. A deposit order of £50 was made in respect of that claim only; the substantive merits were not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.