Case 2406005/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K MacIntosh v Eurochange Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406005/2023
- Decision date
- 14 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K MacIntosh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing at Manchester Employment Tribunal by CVP on 1 November 2023 before Employment Judge Cookson sitting alone. The claimant, Mr K MacIntosh, appeared in person and the respondent, Eurochange Ltd, was represented by Mr Hoyle, consultant.
The tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim and disability discrimination claim under rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The record states that the strike-out application was refused, so the claims were not struck out at this stage.
The decision records no final merits determination and no award of compensation or other remedy. It is therefore a preliminary ruling only, preserving the claims for later determination.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Preliminary issue only: the respondent's strike-out application under rule 37(1) was refused. The OCR text is slightly garbled at the reason for refusal, but the record clearly indicates the claim was not struck out and no merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the respondent's strike-out application under rule 37(1) was refused. The OCR text is slightly garbled at the reason for refusal, but the record clearly indicates the claim was not struck out and no merits determination was made. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.