Case 3200587/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr A Lancaster (2) Mr I Lawal (3) Mr M Haque (4) Mr C Bempah v Mitie Limited and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200587/2023
- Decision date
- 13 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Byrne Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
4 namedClaimant
(1) Mr A Lancaster (2) Mr I Lawal (3) Mr M Haque (4) Mr C Bempah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal acceded to applications made on behalf of R2 and R3 that those respondents had been wrongly included in the listed claims. It removed R2 and R3 from the claims pursuant to Rule 34 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal also determined that all claims brought against R2 and R3 in the listed proceedings had no reasonable prospect of success. Those claims were struck out and dismissed pursuant to Rule 37. The judgment stated that these determinations had no impact on the claims brought against R1.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive causes of action in the claims against R2 and R3. It records that R2 and R3 were wrongly included, were removed under Rule 34, and that all claims against them had no reasonable prospect of success and were struck out and dismissed under Rule 37. The determinations did not affect claims against R1. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 34 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure
- Rule 37 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.