Case 2403692/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Leigh v Ministry of Defence — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403692/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Leigh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The respondent applied to strike out the claim, contending that the claims were significantly out of time and that the claimant had previously brought proceedings arising out of the same facts. The tribunal considered recent correspondence from the claimant and was not satisfied that he had clearly withdrawn the claim, instead treating the correspondence as including a request for a stay.
The tribunal declined to stay the proceedings because it found no utility in doing so unless there was some prospect of the claimant presenting an arguable case. It concluded that the claimant could not successfully defeat the respondent's contention that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal found that the constructive unfair dismissal claim related to employment that ended more than 11 years before the proceedings were issued in March 2023, and that the proceedings could have been brought earlier because they had been brought on at least two previous occasions. It also found that the matters arose from the same facts and subject matter as earlier proceedings, which had been settled or struck out. The complaints were struck out and dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes complaints that the claimant was subjected to detriments because he made protected disclosures. The complaints were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment refers to the claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal. It was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- not reasonably practicable
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.