Case 3206057/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Christopher Coffey v The Old Truman Brewery Limited and 5 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 3206057/2021
- Decision date
- 22 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hughes
Parties
7 namedClaimant
Christopher Coffey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing at East London Hearing Centre on 22 July 2022, Employment Judge David Hughes considered the Claimant’s claims against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents. The judgment records that those claims had no reasonable prospects of success.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claims against those respondents under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The extracted judgment does not record any remedy, liability findings on the merits, or any award.
The text supplied does not identify the substantive legal basis of the claims in the body of the judgment. It also does not record any lay members, suggesting this was a judge-alone decision on strike out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The Claimant’s claims against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents were found to have no reasonable prospects of success and were struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.