Case 2303074/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G DUNNING v Grange Motors (Brentwood) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303074/2022
- Decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hena
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G DUNNING
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 30 June 2023, Employment Judge Hena made a strike-out judgment under rule 37. The respondent's application succeeded in part and the response was struck out in relation to four claims: unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal on the basis that the claimant was dismissed for a protected characteristic, direct sex discrimination, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The reason given for striking out the unfair dismissal claim was that Mr Dunning had less than two years' service. The judgment does not set out merits findings on the remaining struck-out claims beyond identifying them in the order. No remedy was awarded in this judgment because it was limited to the strike-out application.
The judgment records that the case continued on the basis of wrongful dismissal and direct race discrimination. Those claims were not decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out; the judgment describes this as an automatic unfair dismissal claim on the grounds that he was dismissed for a protected characteristic. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant's direct sex discrimination claim was struck out. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The claimant's sexual orientation discrimination claim was struck out. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.