Case 2301442/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Ludlow, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

Case reference: 2301442/2018
Decision date: 23 October 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge H Williams QC

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr C Ludlow, Counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing in London South before Employment Judge H Williams QC on 22 October 2018, the Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's application to strike out the Claimant's claims. It also allowed the Claimant to amend his Claim Form to add an 'ordinary' unfair dismissal claim under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 and an allegation of post-termination detriment arising from letters sent on or about 1 June and 17 July 2018 seeking repayment of overpaid notice monies.

The Tribunal recorded that the Respondent's application for deposit orders succeeded in part, with the detailed terms set out in the accompanying deposit order. The extracted judgment does not determine the merits of the underlying claims and does not state any monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The Tribunal permitted amendment to add an 'ordinary' unfair dismissal claim pursuant to section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996. The extracted judgment is procedural and does not determine the merits.	Other	—	—
Other	The Tribunal permitted amendment to add an allegation of post-termination detriment in relation to the Respondent's letters of about 1 June and 17 July 2018 seeking repayment of overpaid notice monies. The statutory basis is not identified in the extracted text, so it is mapped to 'other'. The extracted judgment is procedural and does not determine the merits.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.