Case 2407525/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr S I Giga v Lancaster University — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407525/2023
- Decision date
- 30 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr S I Giga
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short oral judgment recorded in writing by Employment Judge Phil Allen at a hearing in Manchester by CVP on 27 August 2024. The claimant, Dr S I Giga, appeared in person and the respondent, Lancaster University, was represented by counsel. The only recorded decision was on the respondent's application to strike out the claim, or parts of it, under rule 37(1)(a).
The tribunal refused that strike-out application. The written record does not set out the oral reasons given at the hearing, and it does not record any substantive findings on the underlying public interest disclosure, race discrimination, or unlawful deduction from wages issues. No remedy was awarded or assessed in this decision.
The judgment notes that written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties. On the face of the written record, the case remained live after the refusal of the strike-out application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment only determines the respondent's application to strike out the claim, or parts of it, under rule 37(1)(a). The application was refused; no substantive liability findings were made in this written record. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(a)
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.