Case 2407221/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R L Clement v Ambron Technology Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407221/2024
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R L Clement
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 24 January 2025, the Tribunal told Mrs R L Clement that her unfair dismissal complaint and any complaint relying upon a protected disclosure might be struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing in response.
The Tribunal therefore struck out both the unfair dismissal complaint and the complaint relying upon a protected disclosure. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the merits of those claims, only the procedural strike-out decision.
The Tribunal noted that the claimant's remaining claims were still listed for hearing on 20 March 2025, and that the 21 March 2025 hearing date had been vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Tribunal considered it had no reasonable prospect of success and the claimant did not make written representations or request a hearing in response to the strike-out warning. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to 'any complaint relying upon a protected disclosure'; that complaint was struck out for the same reason as the unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.