Case 2401951/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Simon Hobson v Ministry of Defence — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401951/2024
- Decision date
- 18 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Poynton
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Simon Hobson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint against the Ministry of Defence. The judgment records that the hearing took place in public by CVP at Manchester on 9 July 2024 before Employment Judge Poynton sitting alone.
The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint made by the claimant. On that basis, it concluded that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out pursuant to Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The written judgment does not set out further reasons, noting that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the relevant time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The gov.uk listing category identifies the matter as Contract of Employment. The judgment itself states the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint and struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a) of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.