Case 2603075/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person First v Mr. J Herd – Counsel Second Respondent: Mr. J Feeney - Counsel — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603075/2019
- Decision date
- 21 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an attended open preliminary hearing in Nottingham on 28 February 2020, Employment Judge Heap sitting alone struck out the claimant's claim against both respondents under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The stated basis was that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
The written decision does not identify the substantive type of claim, and it records no findings on liability beyond the strike-out decision. It also records that the First and Second Respondents' costs applications would be determined on the papers, and that the First Respondent was to confirm within seven days whether it was VAT registered.
The judgment notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. No remedy was awarded or assessed in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment does not identify the substantive cause of action. The claim was struck out against both respondents under Rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.