Case 2305833/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Cervantes First v Second Respondent: Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited NHS Blood and Transplant — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305833/2021
- Decision date
- 4 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Cervantes First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge D Wright on 2 October 2023. The written record states that the claim against the First Respondent, Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited, was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The judgment does not set out the underlying factual allegations or the legal basis of the claim in the written record provided. It records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment.
No remedy was awarded, and the written decision contains no findings on the merits beyond the strike-out of the claim against the First Respondent. The record also notes publication details and that the judgment was sent to the parties on 4 October 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action in the written record; it records only that the claim against the First Respondent was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
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.