Case 2402240/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Hopkins v Jungle Rumble — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402240/2024
- Decision date
- 9 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Hopkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 4 December 2024, Employment Judge M Butler considered whether Mr P Hopkins could pursue an unfair dismissal complaint against Jungle Rumble and whether his disability discrimination allegation should be struck out. The hearing was held by CVP in Manchester, and the judgment was sent to the parties on 9 December 2024.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the claimant did not satisfy the two-year continuous service requirement for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, did not bring a complaint based on an automatic unfair dismissal reason, and had not provided a satisfactory explanation for how the claim could proceed despite those points. On that basis, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint had no reasonable prospects of success and dismissed it under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The claimant's disability discrimination allegation, identified more precisely as discrimination arising from disability, was not struck out at the preliminary hearing. The tribunal held that it had not been shown to have no reasonable prospects of success, so that claim was allowed to proceed to a final hearing. No remedy was assessed in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a public preliminary hearing under Rule 37 because the claimant did not satisfy the two-year continuous service requirement, did not bring a complaint falling within automatic unfair dismissal reasons, and gave no satisfactory explanation for pursuing an unfair dismissal claim in those circumstances. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Described by the tribunal as discrimination arising from disability. The claim was not struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success and was directed to proceed to final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal 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.