Case 2406435/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Salmon v Vesta Care (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406435/2022
- Decision date
- 7 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Salmon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester on 29 June 2023 before Employment Judge Phil Allen sitting alone, the tribunal dealt with a withdrawal, a strike-out application, and disability-related harassment claims. The claimant was Mr M Salmon and the respondent was Vesta Care (UK) Limited.
The sex discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. No merits findings are recorded on that claim beyond the fact of withdrawal.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment does not record any remedy because no compensation award was made.
The claims of harassment related to disability were not struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal had not found that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment is a short oral-reasons record and does not include substantive findings on the merits of those harassment allegations.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that the sex discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal refused to strike out the harassment claims related to disability under rule 37(1)(a), finding it had not been established that they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.