Case 2303409/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Samuel Arundel (lay representative) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303409/2021
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Samuel Arundel (lay representative) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held via CVP at London South Employment Tribunal on 3 March 2023 before Employment Judge Webster, the tribunal considered two procedural applications in case 2303409/2021. The claimant was represented by Mr Samuel Arundel and the respondent by Mr Cosgrove, Counsel.
The claimant's application for specific disclosure was refused, and the application for the respondent's response to be struck out was also refused. The tribunal stated that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would only be provided if a written request were made by either party within 14 days of the sending of the record of decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Procedural application: the claimant's application for specific disclosure was refused at a preliminary hearing; this was not a substantive merits claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Procedural application: the claimant's application for the respondent's response to be struck out was refused at a preliminary hearing; this was not a substantive merits claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.