Case 2401254/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Winter v BCN Group Limited Heard — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401254/2024
- Decision date
- 21 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Winter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 10 April 2024, the tribunal listed the case for a preliminary hearing so the claimant could make representations about what claims he proposed to bring and explain why the claim should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. The hearing took place on 13 May 2024 by CVP before Employment Judge Johnson. The claimant was unrepresented and the respondent was represented by Hannah Dodson, Head of HR.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant failed to make sufficient representations at the preliminary hearing. It therefore struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Tribunals’ Rules of Procedure. The judgment contains no merits findings and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not itemise this head of claim separately; it records that the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations at the preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not itemise this head of claim separately; it records that the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations at the preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) of the Tribunals’ Rules of Procedure
- 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.