Case 2600522/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hardie v Abellio East Midlands Limited T/A East Midlands Railway — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600522/2023
- Decision date
- 19 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hardie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis short procedural judgment by Employment Judge Victoria Butler, sent to the parties on 19 September 2024, records only the tribunal's dispositive rulings on the Respondent's strike-out applications. The Respondent's application to strike out allegation 5.1.5 succeeded because the tribunal found that allegation had no reasonable prospect of succeeding.
The Respondent's application to strike out allegation 5.1.6 was refused. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the decision itself contains no fuller factual or legal analysis beyond those rulings. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's application to strike out allegation 5.1.5 succeeded because the tribunal held it had no reasonable prospect of succeeding. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Respondent's application to strike out allegation 5.1.6 was refused; the allegation was not struck out by this judgment. | Other | — | — |
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.