Case 2414432/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hession v 1.Prosperity Law LLP 2.Mr A Farrell 3.Mr S Gerrard 4.Mr E Smethurst — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414432/2021
- Decision date
- 12 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hession
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester on 8 July 2022 before Employment Judge Warren sitting alone, the Tribunal dealt with a number of preliminary applications rather than the final merits of the case. The claimant's application to have the unlawful deduction from wages claim for holiday pay heard at that hearing was refused, and that part of the claim was left to be heard at the main hearing with the other heads of claim.
The Tribunal also refused the claimant's application to admit 'without prejudice' documents into evidence, describing the application as ill founded. On the same basis, the claim of victimisation founded on comments within the 'without prejudice' correspondence was dismissed.
The judgment records that any other victimisation claim would be joined to the disability discrimination claim in case 2414432/2021 and heard together at the already listed final hearing. The order required the claimant to remove references to the dismissed matters from his particulars of claim and witness statements. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The victimisation allegation based on comments within the 'without prejudice' correspondence was described as ill founded and dismissed. Any other victimisation claim was to be joined to the disability discrimination claim and heard at the final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.