Case 2302770/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Limpert, Representative For v Mr T Russell, Solicitor — 2018
- Case reference
- 2302770/2017
- Decision date
- 16 July 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Limpert, Representative For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant began work for the Respondent on 16 November 2015 as PR and Community Manager and was dismissed in July 2017. For the preliminary hearing, the tribunal recorded the Claimant's ET1 as including unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice and unpaid holiday claims, and sexual harassment and victimisation allegations. The Respondent said the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and that the whole workforce was made redundant at about that time.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim could not proceed because the Claimant did not have the requisite two years' continuous service. It therefore found that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear that claim and struck it out. The redundancy pay claim was withdrawn by the Claimant's representative on the basis that it had been included in error, and the tribunal also struck that claim out.
The Respondent's application to strike out or obtain a deposit order in relation to the remaining allegations was rejected. The judge referred to Rules 37 and 39 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and to Hemdan v Ishmail, noting the different thresholds for strike out and deposit orders. On the material then available, the tribunal was not satisfied that the remaining allegations had no reasonable prospect of success or little reasonable prospect of success, and considered that disputed factual issues would need to be determined at a full merits hearing after disclosure and witness evidence.
The judgment also recorded a contractual counterclaim by the Respondent for £25,000 arising from an alleged failure to renew the Respondent's domain name. The judge's preliminary view was that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear that counterclaim, but instead of striking it out immediately the tribunal proposed to allow the Claimant an opportunity to clarify the basis of the notice and holiday pay claims by further and better particulars, after which the counterclaim would either be withdrawn or struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the Claimant did not have the requisite two years' continuous service to bring a normal unfair dismissal claim, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. The judgment records the claim as rejected and struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Claimant's representative said this claim had been included in error and withdrew it before the hearing. The tribunal therefore struck it out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- two years' continuous service
- Rule 37
- Rule 39
- reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
- Hemdan v Ishmail
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.