Case 2414971/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Wolstenholme v Diamond Bus Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2414971/2021
- Decision date
- 16 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Wolstenholme
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Johnson on 13 March 2023. The Tribunal decided that the claimant’s complaints of unfair (constructive) dismissal, constructive dismissal, and a complaint under the Equality Act 2010 had no reasonable prospects of success and were struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
Because the complaints were struck out, the Tribunal said it was unnecessary to consider a deposit order under Rule 39. It also recorded that the final hearing listed for 21, 22 and 23 September 2023 would not go ahead.
The respondent’s application for costs dated 3 February 2023 succeeded. Applying Rule 76(1)(a) and (b) and Rule 78(1)(a), the Tribunal ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £200, described as an appropriate proportion of the costs incurred by the respondent while legally represented.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal treated this as a complaint of unfair (constructive) dismissal and struck it out under Rule 37(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment refers to a complaint under the Equality Act 2010 and strikes it out under Rule 37(1)(a); the case listing identified the discrimination category as disability discrimination. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £200
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 76(1)(a) and (b) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 78(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.