Case 2402693/2024 · Employment Tribunal
J Luby v Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402693/2024
- Decision date
- 24 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Luby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 4 April 2025, Employment Judge Batten, sitting alone in Manchester by video platform, heard the respondent's applications to strike out both claim numbers. For claim 2402693/2024, the tribunal struck out the claim because it considered the complaints had no reasonable prospects of success. It also recorded that the race discrimination and victimisation complaints were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Claim 2406665/2024 was also struck out. The tribunal held that it was presented out of time, that it had been reasonably practicable for the whistleblowing and wages complaints to be presented in time, that it was not just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination complaints, and that all of the complaints had no reasonable prospects of success. No monetary remedy was awarded because both claim numbers were struck out at the preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim number 2402693/2024 was struck out because the Tribunal considered the complaints had no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment also said the race discrimination and victimisation complaints were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim number 2406665/2024 was struck out because it was presented out of time. The Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the whistleblowing and wages complaints to be presented in time, refused to extend time for the discrimination complaints, and also held that all complaints had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- no reasonable prospects of success
- presented out of time
- just and equitable to extend time
- reasonably practicable to be presented in time
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.