Case 2414711/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Langley v 1) The Hut Group Limited 2) AM2PM Group Holdings Limited 3) Ginomine Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 2414711/2019
- Decision date
- 10 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Langley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 5 February 2021 before Employment Judge Batten sitting alone in Manchester, the Tribunal determined that the claimant's employer at the material time was AM2PM Recruitment Solutions (Birmingham) Limited. On that basis, the second and third respondents were removed from the proceedings and AM2PM Recruitment Solutions (Birmingham) Limited was added as a respondent under rule 34.
The Tribunal then struck out the claimant's claim against all respondents because it had no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment does not give separate merits findings on the individual heads of claim; it records a single strike-out order covering the case as a whole.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not separate this head of claim in the reasons; it records a strike-out of the claimant's claim against all respondents because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not separate this head of claim in the reasons; it records a strike-out of the claimant's claim against all respondents because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not separate this head of claim in the reasons; it records a strike-out of the claimant's claim against all respondents because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.