Case 2304306/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Tomkinson, Claimant’s husband v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304306/2019
- Decision date
- 19 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrington JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr R Tomkinson, Claimant’s husband
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Harrington at Croydon on 19 February 2020 struck out the claimant's claim against British Red Cross Society on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. The GOV.UK decision page records jurisdiction codes for Protective Award, Redundancy and Unfair Dismissal, but the extracted written record does not set out separate findings on each head of claim.
The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the sending of the written record. No monetary award or remedy is recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | GOV.UK listing records Protective Award as a jurisdiction code. The written judgment record states only that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success and was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | GOV.UK listing records Redundancy as a jurisdiction code. The written judgment record gives no separate head-by-head reasoning and states only that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | GOV.UK listing records Unfair Dismissal as a jurisdiction code. The written judgment record gives no separate head-by-head reasoning and states only that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. | 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.