Case 2303042/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Appleford v Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303042/2018
- Decision date
- 4 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Appleford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Martin Date held that Mr K Appleford's claims had no reasonable prospect of success and ordered them struck out on 4 June 2019. The extracted judgment gives no further factual findings, no separate analysis of each claim head, and no remedy because the decision was confined to strike-out.
The GOV.UK listing for the case identifies the jurisdiction as Part Time Workers, Public Interest Disclosure and Unfair Dismissal. The judgment text supplied here does not set out the underlying allegations or any merits determination beyond the strike-out decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The extracted judgment says only that the Claimant's claims had no reasonable prospect of success and were struck out at a preliminary hearing. The separate claim head is taken from the GOV.UK listing category rather than the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The extracted judgment says only that the Claimant's claims had no reasonable prospect of success and were struck out at a preliminary hearing. The separate claim head is taken from the GOV.UK listing category rather than the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment says only that the Claimant's claims had no reasonable prospect of success and were struck out at a preliminary hearing. The separate claim head is taken from the GOV.UK listing category rather than the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
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.