Case 2404359/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Chima v South Ribble Borough Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404359/2023
- Decision date
- 19 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representatives
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Chima
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 18 January 2024, the tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out the proceedings. It found that the claimant's pursuit of these Employment Tribunal proceedings was not vexatious for the purposes of the application, and it also found that the claimant's request for a position with the respondent in February 2023 was not vexatious.
The tribunal further held that the earlier County Court proceedings between the parties did not mean that res judicata applied. It also found that there was no cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, or abuse of process.
On that basis, the respondent's strike out application did not succeed. The written record records only the outcome of that interlocutory application and does not record any remedy or substantive determination of the underlying claim in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment determined the respondent's strike out application only. The tribunal held that the claimant's pursuit of the Employment Tribunal proceedings was not vexatious, that the February 2023 request for a position was not vexatious, and that earlier County Court proceedings did not give rise to res judicata, cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, or abuse of process. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- res judicata
- cause of action estoppel
- issue estoppel
- abuse of process
- vexatious
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.