Case 2501604/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Liddell v Lookers plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501604/2020
- Decision date
- 23 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Liddell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 20 April 2021 before Employment Judge Morris sitting alone, the tribunal considered whether all or part of Lookers Plc's response should be struck out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal was not satisfied that it could be said that all or part of the respondent's response had no reasonable prospect of success. It therefore ordered that no part of the response was struck out. The judgment did not determine the underlying unfair dismissal or breach of contract complaints and recorded no remedy award.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment stated that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Public preliminary hearing judgment refusing to strike out any part of the respondent's response under rule 37; the substantive unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims listed for the case were not determined in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.