Case 2302017/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Alexander v London Borough of Croydon — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302017/2023
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Musgrave-Cohen Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Alexander
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claims on the basis that the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010 claims, or parts of them, had been presented outside the applicable statutory time limit. The application was dismissed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success on that basis.
The tribunal also considered the respondent's application for a deposit order. That application was dismissed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claims had little reasonable prospect of success on the same time-limit basis.
The judgment records that a separate case management order would set out steps for preparation for the final hearing. The reasons were given orally, with written reasons available only if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment did not determine the merits of the Employment Rights Act 1996 claims. It dismissed the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications based on statutory time-limit arguments. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment did not determine the merits of the Employment Rights Act 1996 claims. It dismissed the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications based on statutory time-limit arguments. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment did not determine the merits of the Equality Act 2010 claims. It dismissed the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications based on statutory time-limit arguments; the extracted judgment text does not set out the underlying discrimination allegations. | Other | Disability | — |
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.