Case 2303925/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303925/2019
- Decision date
- 21 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyde Dated
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge C Hyde sitting alone in London South on 11 February 2020. Mr K Young appeared in person and PwC was represented by counsel, Mr S Purnell. The written judgment states that the Claimant's claim had no reasonable prospect of success and was therefore struck out.
The judgment does not set out the substantive allegations in the written text provided. It therefore records only the procedural outcome, not any findings on the merits of particular claims. The tribunal did not identify any written reasons to accompany the decision, noting that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal also made a costs order against the Claimant under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, in the sum of £2,000. No separate compensatory, basic, or injury-to-feelings award is recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the Claimant's claim had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out at an open preliminary hearing. The written text does not identify the underlying substantive cause(s) of action. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.