Case 2402373/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Bailey v UK Debt Help Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402373/2019
- Decision date
- 19 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Bailey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Robinson sat alone in Manchester on 3 September 2019 and dealt with interlocutory applications in cases 2402373/2019 and 2411122/2019. The tribunal dismissed the respondent's application to strike out some of the claimant's claims and/or make a deposit order.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's application that the ET3 and counterclaim should not be allowed to proceed because they had been lodged out of time. The judgment records that further directions were then made at a closed preliminary hearing immediately after this hearing to bring the matters on for trial.
This was a procedural judgment only. The tribunal stated that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, and it made no substantive liability findings or monetary award in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's application to have some of the claimant's claims struck out and/or for a deposit order was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claimant's application that the ET3 and counterclaim should not be allowed to proceed because they were lodged out of time was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.