Case 2301822/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr CT v The Forward Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301822/2020
- Decision date
- 14 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr CT
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing on 30 April 2022 was devoted to considering the List of Issues one-by-one. The tribunal recorded that there had been lengthy discussion about the list since April 2021, that EJ Mason had previously given guidance, and that the claimant had been given multiple opportunities to identify any error or omission or to correct the list.
The tribunal refused the claimant’s application for reconsideration of the earlier outcome. It found there was no prospect of the outcome being varied or revoked. The tribunal also noted the respondent’s position that it had been attempting to comply with the overriding objective and to assist in clarifying the claimant’s case.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had continued to make lengthy submissions, but concluded that it was not reasonable or proportionate to prolong the process further. It said the claimant’s assertion that items were missing from the List of Issues was not substantiated, confirmed that the list was finalised, and recorded that directions would be given separately. This judgment did not determine the underlying substantive employment claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing reasons on the List of Issues. The claimant applied for reconsideration of the earlier outcome, and that application was refused because there was no prospect of it being varied or revoked. No substantive merits claims were decided in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.