Case 2307618/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Joseph Johnson v Mr Rob Tate and 6 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2307618/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
- Venue
- London South
Parties
8 namedClaimant
Mr Joseph Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Khalil, sitting alone at London South on 8 March 2022, heard the respondents' applications under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 to strike out the claims in case numbers 2307618/2020, 2307851/2020 and 2308282/2020. The claimant appeared in person and the respondents were represented by counsel.
The tribunal decided that the respondents' applications were not well founded and therefore failed. No substantive determination of the underlying employment claims is recorded in this judgment, and no remedy was awarded.
The written record states that reasons were given at the hearing, but written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days. The decision therefore records only the outcome of the strike-out application, not the merits of the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondents' application under Rule 37(1)(a) to strike out the claims was found not well founded and failed; the judgment does not determine the substantive merits of the underlying claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.