Case 2409536/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Sutton v Mr David Evans (as a representative of all members of the Labour Party save for the claimant) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409536/2023
- Decision date
- 2 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Sutton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 22 March 2024 in Manchester, Employment Judge Dunlop amended the respondent's name by consent to 'Mr David Evans (as a representative of all members of the Labour Party save for the claimant)'. The tribunal then dealt with the claim as a preliminary issue.
The claimant's claim was struck out. The only reason given in the written record is that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and that allowing it to continue would therefore be an abuse of process.
The judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note attached to the decision. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states only that the claimant's claim was struck out because the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it and allowing it to continue would be an abuse of process. The underlying substantive cause of action is not identified in the text supplied. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.