Case 2410850/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Pusbauer v Emirates Airlines — 2025
- Case reference
- 2410850/2023
- Decision date
- 25 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Dr H Vahramian, Mr Q Colborn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Pusbauer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Manchester hearing on 11 August 2025, the tribunal, sitting as Employment Judge Leach with Dr H Vahramian and Mr Q Colborn, heard the respondent's application to strike out the claim. The claimant did not attend and the respondent was represented by a solicitor. The tribunal's decision was unanimous.
The tribunal struck out the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 under Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. In the alternative, it also struck that complaint out under Rule 38(1)(b) because the tribunal found the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the claimant was unreasonable.
The tribunal also struck out all complaints under the Equality Act under Rule 38(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospects of success. In the alternative, those complaints were also struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) on the same ground of unreasonable conduct. The judgment records no remedy because the whole claim was struck out at this preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment identifies this only as a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. It was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospects of success, and in the alternative under Rule 38(1)(b) because the claimant's conduct of the proceedings was unreasonable. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to 'all complaints under the Equality Act' but does not specify the individual Equality Act causes of action. Those complaints were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospects of success, and in the alternative under Rule 38(1)(b) because the claimant's conduct of the proceedings was unreasonable. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38(1)(a) no reasonable prospects of success
- Rule 38(1)(b) unreasonable conduct
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.