Case 3200119/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mosley-Redman v Department for Work and Pensions — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200119/2024
- Decision date
- 8 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Iman Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mosley-Redman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing on 8 August 2025, Employment Judge Iman held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's unlawful deduction of wages complaint insofar as it concerned payments he said he would have received had he remained in post. The judgment said that aspect had no reasonable prospect of success, and the claims were struck out.
The Tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction over claims for pregnancy and/or maternity brought by a male claimant, referring to section 18 of the Equality Act. That claim therefore did not proceed.
The claimant's oral application to amend to add disability discrimination and a grievance-related allegation was refused. The Tribunal said those matters were not in the ET1 or the further and better particulars, were not shown to have been raised at the 3 March 2025 case management hearing, would amount to a substantial new claim with time limit issues, and remained too vague to justify amendment in the interests of justice. A further application to amend to add sex discrimination, based on being male and taking paternity leave, was also refused because it was late, vague, and not shown to have reasonable prospects of success; the Tribunal said the balance of hardship and injustice favoured the respondent. The judgment ended by striking out the claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over the alleged deductions insofar as they related to payments the claimant said he would have received had he remained in post, and said there was no reasonable prospect of success on that aspect. The judgment then struck out the claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over pregnancy and/or maternity claims brought by a male claimant under section 18 of the Equality Act. The claim was therefore struck out. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant's oral application to amend to add disability discrimination, and a grievance claim understood to form part of that issue, was refused. The Tribunal said the allegation was not in the ET1 or further and better particulars, was not shown to have been raised at the earlier case management hearing, was a substantial new claim with time limit issues, remained vague, and did not have reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant's oral application to amend to add sex discrimination, based on him being male and taking paternity leave, was refused. The Tribunal found the application was late, remained vague, had not been raised at the previous preliminary hearing, and did not satisfy the interests of justice or reasonable prospect of success tests; it also said the balance of hardship/injustice favoured the respondent. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- interests of justice
- reasonable prospect of success
- balance of hardship/injustice
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.