Case 3200672/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Anderson v London Borough of Redbridge and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200672/2023
- Decision date
- 20 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr K Anderson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused a joint application to postpone the final hearing. It found that the application had been made less than seven days before the hearing, that there had already been two previous postponements, and that no exceptional circumstances applied.
The tribunal then struck out all of the claimant’s claims and both respondents’ responses in their entirety under Rule 38(1)(b) to (e) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The stated grounds were unreasonable conduct of the proceedings by or on behalf of all parties, repeated non-compliance with the Rules or multiple tribunal orders, failure actively to pursue the claims and responses, and the tribunal’s conclusion that a fair hearing was no longer possible.
The written judgment does not set out the substantive merits of any individual claim. It records a case management disposal of the proceedings as a whole and notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The judgment states that all the claimant's claims were struck out in their entirety, but it does not separately discuss this claim or identify the protected characteristic linked to it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that all the claimant's claims were struck out in their entirety, but it does not separately discuss this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that all the claimant's claims were struck out in their entirety, but it does not separately discuss this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that all the claimant's claims were struck out in their entirety, but it does not separately discuss this claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that all the claimant's claims were struck out in their entirety, but it does not separately discuss this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The judgment states that all the claimant's claims were struck out in their entirety, but it does not separately discuss this claim. | Struck out | Sexual orientation |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(b-e) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.