Case 2500809/2022 · Employment Tribunal
MR A AUGUSTUS v Vertu Motors (Chingford) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500809/2022
- Decision date
- 9 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR A AUGUSTUS
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 27 February 2023, before Employment Judge Skehan, the claimant did not attend and the respondent was represented by Mr C Harvey. The corrected judgment records that all claims made by the claimant were struck out under Rule 37 because they had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that all claims made by the claimant were struck out under Rule 37; this claim type is inferred from the case listing. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that all claims made by the claimant were struck out under Rule 37; this claim type is inferred from the case listing. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that all claims made by the claimant were struck out under Rule 37; this claim type is inferred from the case listing. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that all claims made by the claimant were struck out under Rule 37; this claim type is inferred from the case listing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment states that all claims made by the claimant were struck out under Rule 37; this claim type is inferred from the case listing. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that all claims made by the claimant were struck out under Rule 37; this claim type is inferred from the case listing. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
- 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.