Case 2301871/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrew Kyei v ISS Mediclean Limited trading as ISS Facility Services Healthcare — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301871/2024
- Decision date
- 22 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrew Kyei
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 17 July 2024 at Croydon by CVP, before Employment Judge Lumby, the parties agreed to amend the respondent name to ISS Mediclean Limited trading as ISS Facility Services Healthcare. The tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing and recorded the decision in writing on 22 July 2024.
The claimant's complaint of disability discrimination was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The unfair dismissal complaint was also struck out because the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring that complaint. As all complaints in the claim were struck out, the entire claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring the complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
- 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.