Case 3301610/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Johnson v London Borough of Harrow and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301610/2025
- Decision date
- 8 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rakhim Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr J Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 8 July 2025, Employment Judge Rakhim considered claims brought by Mr J Johnson against London Borough of Harrow and Caroline Rowlands. The judgment records claims for sex discrimination, whistleblowing, harassment and victimisation.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Struck out at a preliminary hearing under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the claim was said to be scandalous or vexatious and to have no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | Struck out at a preliminary hearing under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the claim was said to be scandalous or vexatious and to have no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | Struck out at a preliminary hearing under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the claim was said to be scandalous or vexatious and to have no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Struck out at a preliminary hearing under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the claim was said to be scandalous or vexatious and to have no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.