Case 2404645/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Tasker v First Manchester Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404645/2022
- Decision date
- 17 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Tasker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 11 May 2023 before Employment Judge Liz Ord, the claimant did not attend but had sent written submissions. The respondent was represented by Ms Morag Dalziel. The written judgment records that Mr C Tasker's breach of contract claim was dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it.
The judgment also records an interlocutory ruling on the claimant's harassment claim. The respondent's applications to strike out that claim on the basis of no reasonable prospects of success, or alternatively for a deposit order, were refused. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The respondent's applications to strike out the harassment claim on the basis of no reasonable prospects of success, or alternatively for a deposit order, were refused. No merits determination is recorded in this judgment. | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.