Case 2602433/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs O Anderson v PeoplePlus Group Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602433/2021
- Decision date
- 29 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs O Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Judge Brian Doyle on 29 April 2022, the respondent applied to strike out the claimant's disability discrimination complaint. The tribunal granted that application under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal noted that, because of the strike-out, the preliminary issue of whether Mrs O Anderson was a disabled person at the relevant time fell away and was not finally determined at this hearing. No remedy was awarded on the disability discrimination complaint.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, race discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination were not determined at this hearing and were listed to proceed to the final hearing on 22 August 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The respondent's application succeeded under rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that the disability discrimination complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. The preliminary issue of whether the claimant was a disabled person at the relevant time fell away and was not finally determined at this hearing. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(a) of the 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.