Case 3200170/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Alastair Patterson v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200170/2020
- Decision date
- 9 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alastair Patterson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant informed the Tribunal that he conceded the strike out application because he would not be able to demonstrate causal disadvantage. At the preliminary hearing he confirmed that this was intended as a withdrawal of his claim, and maintained that position after the judge explained that the strike out application was not being considered at that hearing.
The Claimant also applied for a preparation time order, arguing that the Respondent had acted unreasonably by applying for strike out before disclosure. The Tribunal held that, following withdrawal under Rule 51, there was no scope for a Claimant to pursue a preparation time order. It also found that the Respondent was entitled to apply for strike out or a deposit order in its Response and was not required to wait until after disclosure.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim upon withdrawal under Rule 52. It dismissed the preparation time application and reached no concluded view on whether the Respondent's strike out or deposit order application would have succeeded on its merits.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment dismissed the claim upon the Claimant's withdrawal under Rule 52 and did not determine the merits. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment dismissed the claim upon the Claimant's withdrawal under Rule 52 and did not determine the merits. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment dismissed the claim upon the Claimant's withdrawal under Rule 52 and did not determine the merits. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment dismissed the claim upon the Claimant's withdrawal under Rule 52 and did not determine the merits. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismissed the claim upon the Claimant's withdrawal under Rule 52 and did not determine the merits. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismissed the claim upon the Claimant's withdrawal under Rule 52 and did not determine the merits. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.