Case 2601764/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Chloe O’Sullivan v 50Cycles Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601764/2018
- Decision date
- 5 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Chloe O’Sullivan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Adkinson considered the respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's harassment on the grounds of age claim, and her notice pay and redundancy pay claims, on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal dismissed those strike-out applications.
The tribunal also dismissed the applications for the claimant to be required to pay a deposit in respect of those claims. It then gave subsequent case management directions so that the case could progress to a final hearing. No substantive liability finding or monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The respondent's application to strike out the age-harassment claim for lack of reasonable prospect of success was dismissed, and the application for a deposit order was also dismissed. The substantive claim was left to proceed to final hearing. | Other | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | This entry covers the claim for notice pay. The respondent's strike-out application and deposit application were both dismissed, so the claim remained live for further case management. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | The respondent's application to strike out the redundancy pay claim for lack of reasonable prospect of success was dismissed, and the deposit application was also dismissed. The claim was not finally determined in 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.