Case 2403017/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Tomos v Institute and Faculty of Actuaries — 2017
- Case reference
- 2403017/2017
- Decision date
- 5 October 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holbrook
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Tomos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis written judgment records a preliminary hearing at Liverpool on 29 September 2017 before Employment Judge Holbrook sitting alone. The parties were represented by the claimant in person and the respondent by a solicitor.
The tribunal's decision was procedural only. It held that the claimant was permitted to amend his ET1 in the manner set out in the minute of the preliminary hearing of the same date. No substantive liability finding or remedy award is recorded in this written decision.
The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard note. The written judgment sent to the parties on 5 October 2017 therefore preserves only the amendment decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment is procedural only. It records that the claimant was permitted to amend his ET1 in the manner set out in the minute of the preliminary hearing of the same date; no substantive claim was adjudicated in this written record. | Other | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.