Case 2403239/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Rawlins Catterall v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society — 2025
- Case reference
- 2403239/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Rawlins Catterall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public, heard at Manchester by CVP on 5 February 2025 before Employment Judge KM Ross. The claimant, Mr A Rawlins Catterall, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Fisher, solicitor.
The tribunal dismissed two preliminary applications. First, the respondent’s application to strike out the claim under Rule 38(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2025 was held not well founded. Second, the respondent’s application for an unless order requiring the claimant to provide specified information was also held not well founded.
The written record states that the tribunal gave reasons orally at the hearing. It also states that written reasons will not be provided unless a party asked for them at the hearing or makes a written request within 14 days of the sending of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application to strike out the claim under Rule 38(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2025 was found not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Application for an unless order requiring the claimant to provide specified information was found not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38(1)(b), (c) and (d) Employment Tribunal Rules 2025
- unless order
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.