Case 2400849/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Whelan v Salford Software Ltd and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 2400849/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Whelan
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the respondents' application to strike out the claimant's sex discrimination claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant's representative opposed the application.
Employment Judge Phil Allen found that the determination of the sex discrimination claim would turn on disputed factual issues, including comparator circumstances, alleged different treatment, hypothetical comparator treatment, and whether any difference in treatment was because of sex. The tribunal could not say without hearing evidence that the claim, or any part of it, had no reasonable prospect of success, so the application to strike out was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment determined only the respondents' application to strike out the sex discrimination claim. The application was refused and the claim was not struck out; the merits were not finally adjudicated. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- rule 38(1)(a)
- Cox v Adecco UKEAT/0339/19
- no reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.