Case 2603238/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Martin v Neovia Logistics Services (UK) Limited and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603238/2019
- Decision date
- 19 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Martin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 28 July 2020 before Employment Judge Faulkner, sitting alone, the tribunal rejected the claim against the Second Respondent under rule 12 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The tribunal recorded that the Claim Form instituted relevant proceedings, contained confirmation that one of the early conciliation exemptions applied, and that an early conciliation exemption did not in fact apply.
The First Respondent's application to strike out all or part of the Claimant's claim on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success was refused. The First Respondent's application for deposit orders in relation to certain of the Claimant's allegations was also refused. Case management orders were to be issued separately. The judgment contains no merits findings on the substantive allegations and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim against the Second Respondent was rejected under rule 12 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the Claim Form instituted relevant proceedings, stated that one of the early conciliation exemptions applied, and no early conciliation exemption in fact applied. The judgment made no merits findings on the underlying allegations. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 12 of Schedule 1 to the 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.