Case 2302606/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Wentworth Lifts Ltd and Secretary of State for Business and Industrial Strategy — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302606/2017
- Decision date
- 21 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment covers case numbers 2302606/2017 and 2302607/2017 brought by Mr JM Ackerman and Mrs IM Ackerman against Wentworth Lifts Ltd and the Secretary of State for Business and Industrial Strategy. On 16 March 2018, the tribunal wrote to the claimants giving them an opportunity to make written representations or to request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out.
The claimants did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claims on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Linked to case number 2302606/2017. The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type in the extracted text; it states that the claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Linked to case number 2302607/2017. The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type in the extracted text; it states that the claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- not actively pursued
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.