Case 2302702/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr James West v 17 Grams Coffee Roasters Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302702/2023
- Decision date
- 24 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr James West
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint only. By letter dated 16 June 2023, it gave Mr James West an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why that complaint should not be struck out because it appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success, the apparent reason being that he had been employed for less than two years.
Mr West did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claim(s) were still listed for hearing on 11 December 2023 and 17 to 20 September 2024, but those claims were not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 16 June 2023 to make representations or request a hearing. The reason given was that the unfair dismissal complaint appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant appeared to have been employed for less than two years. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- 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.