Case 2418418/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person. For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2418418/2020
- Decision date
- 25 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person. For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing held on 10 November 2021 before Employment Judge A M Buchanan, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Ms J Ferguson of Counsel. The tribunal dealt only with case management at this stage.
The tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal, however advanced, on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. No remedy was awarded in relation to that complaint.
The tribunal recorded that all other complaints advanced by the claimant would proceed to a full hearing, and separate case management orders were issued. Written reasons were not provided because the judgment had been given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at a public preliminary hearing under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.