Case 2411365/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Wendy Lock v Sopra Steria Limited RECORD OF A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 2411365/2023
- Decision date
- 13 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Millns Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Wendy Lock
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Millns sitting at Manchester by video on 13 November 2025, dealing with the Respondent's application under rule 38 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2024 to strike out parts of the Claimant's claim or, alternatively, for deposit orders. No final determination on the merits of any claim was made.
At the outset, the Claimant withdrew her holiday pay claim and her breach of contract claim for an enhanced redundancy payment (the latter so it could be pursued in another jurisdiction), and withdrew several specific allegations of unfairness within her unfair dismissal claim (paragraphs 1.1(a), 1.2, 1.3 and 1.6 of her Further and Better Particulars). Those withdrawn claims and allegations were dismissed upon withdrawal.
On the strike out application itself, the Tribunal struck out two further unfair dismissal allegations (paragraphs 1.1(f) and 1.1(h)) on the basis that, taking the Claimant's case at its highest, the lack of specificity meant they had no reasonable prospect of success and the Claimant had not complied with EJ Buzzard's April 2025 order for further information. The remainder of the strike out and deposit application was refused: the Tribunal held that the disputes about the TOIL contractual variation (paragraph 1.10) and the notice pay claim (paragraph 1.11) involved genuine factual disputes that did not meet the high bar for strike out or the lower bar for a deposit order, and that the Claimant had provided sufficient further information on those points. The remaining claims proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Public preliminary hearing. Several allegations of unfairness were dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant (paragraphs 1.1(a), 1.2, 1.3 and 1.6 of the Further and Better Particulars). Two further allegations (1.1(f) and 1.1(h)) were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success due to lack of specificity and non-compliance with EJ Buzzard's order. The remainder of the Respondent's strike out / deposit application was refused and the unfair dismissal claim otherwise proceeds to a final hearing; no final determination on the merits has been made. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim of unpaid holiday pay dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant (paragraph 1.12 of her Further and Better Particulars). | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim in respect of failure to pay an enhanced redundancy payment dismissed upon withdrawal. The Claimant indicated she intends to pursue the claim in another jurisdiction; EJ Buzzard had noted she valued the redundancy enhancement at approximately £180,000, of which only £25,000 could be recovered in the employment tribunal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim regarding payment for accrued TOIL on termination of employment (paragraph 1.10). Application to strike out or impose a deposit refused; the Tribunal found there is a real factual dispute about whether a contractual variation occurred and the high bar for strike out (and the lower bar for deposit) was not met. Claim proceeds to final hearing. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Cox v Adecco
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.