Case 3301054/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M. Speechley v Thomas Ridley And Son Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3301054/2021
- Decision date
- 26 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M. Speechley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 25 November 2021 before Employment Judge McNeill QC, the claimant clarified that his claims were for a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and for unfair (constructive) dismissal said to arise from his having raised a health and safety concern. The hearing was conducted by CVP at Watford, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the Working Time Regulations claim because it was brought out of time. No monetary remedy was awarded in relation to that claim.
The tribunal also struck out the unfair (constructive) dismissal claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment does not record any compensatory or other award, and no remedy figures were set out in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was found to have been brought out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Claimant's unfair (constructive) dismissal claim, said to arise from raising a health and safety concern, was held to have no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out at the preliminary hearing. | 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.