Case 2600439/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Awerije v 1) Ms E Martin 2) Everdale Grange Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600439/2019
- Decision date
- 30 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Awerije
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn case nos. 2600439/2019 and 2405558/2019, the tribunal sat at Leicester on 30 August 2019 before Employment Judge Batten. It heard from Mr Awerije and from counsel for the respondents, Ms E Martin and Everdale Grange Limited.
The judgment records a single outcome: the claimant's claims were struck out because they had no reasonable prospects of success. The written record does not set out separate findings on each claim in the body of the decision, and it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No monetary remedy was awarded. The record also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The written judgment does not list the individual claims in the body of the decision; this claim type is inferred from the case listing/categories supplied with the judgment. The tribunal stated only that the claimant's claims were struck out because they had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment does not list the individual claims in the body of the decision; this claim type is inferred from the case listing/categories supplied with the judgment. The tribunal stated only that the claimant's claims were struck out because they had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment does not list the individual claims in the body of the decision; this claim type is inferred from the case listing/categories supplied with the judgment. The tribunal stated only that the claimant's claims were struck out because they 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.
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.