Case 2303548/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Isidore v ABM Aviation UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303548/2023
- Decision date
- 12 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Isidore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied to strike out Mr C Isidore's claim on the basis that, after his employment transferred to a third party under TUPE on 30 November 2022, any claims he had for outstanding holiday pay, unpaid wages or disability discrimination had transferred with him and therefore had no reasonable prospect of success against ABM Aviation UK Limited. The respondent also relied on the claimant's failure to comply with Tribunal orders, failure to actively pursue the claim, scandalous and unreasonable conduct, and the contention that a fair hearing was no longer possible.
The Tribunal noted that the claimant had maintained in written and oral representations that he had not transferred under TUPE, but he had admitted entering a COT3 settlement in proceedings against the transferee. The Employment Judge also observed that the claim form in those proceedings stated that he did TUPE-transfer into the transferee's employment on 1 December 2022, and the transferee agreed that he had transferred on that date. In light of those facts, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of succeeding with his claim against the respondent.
The Tribunal also found that the manner in which the claimant had conducted the proceedings was scandalous and vexatious. The claim was therefore struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and Rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 14 to 16 May 2025 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment referred to outstanding holiday pay as one of the complaints in the case, but it struck out the claim as a whole and did not determine this head separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment referred to unpaid wages as one of the complaints in the case, but it struck out the claim as a whole and did not determine this head separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment referred to disability discrimination as one of the complaints in the case, but it struck out the claim as a whole and did not determine this head separately. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 37(1)(b)
- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 37(1)(e)
- no reasonable prospect of succeeding
- scandalous and vexatious
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.