Case 3200327/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Sapsford v PRL Realisations Ltd (In Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200327/2020
- Decision date
- 18 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Sapsford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 15 October 2020, the Tribunal gave Mr L Sapsford an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, or did not request a hearing.
Employment Judge Crosfill therefore struck out the claim on 18 February 2021. The judgment records a procedural strike out only and does not contain substantive findings on the merits of the underlying age discrimination, disability discrimination, breach of contract, or unlawful deduction from wages complaints.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment records that the claim was struck out in full and does not separate outcomes by individual claim. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claim was struck out in full and does not separate outcomes by individual claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claim was struck out in full and does not separate outcomes by individual claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claim was struck out in full and does not separate outcomes by individual claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.