Case 2302151/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Rass Armstrong v London Fire Commissioner — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302151/2024
- Decision date
- 4 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Rass Armstrong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London South on 2 June 2025, Employment Judge Ramsden heard the Claimant’s application to strike out the Respondent’s Response. The application was advanced on three grounds: that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing in respect of the claim under Rule 38(1)(e), that the manner in which the Respondent had conducted the proceedings was scandalous or unreasonable under Rule 38(1)(b), and that the Respondent had failed to comply with EJ Burge’s orders to agree a bundle, produce a bundle and exchange witness statements under Rule 38(1)(c).
After considering written and oral representations from both parties, the Tribunal refused the application. The judgment records no separate findings on the underlying claims and no award of compensation or other remedy, because the decision was confined to the preliminary strike-out issue.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No further written reasons are provided in the decision text supplied here.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claimant’s application to strike out the Respondent’s Response under Rule 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38(1)(e)
- Rule 38(1)(b)
- Rule 38(1)(c)
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.