Case 3301637/2024 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Mr John Brotherton (Solicitor) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301637/2024
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury St Edmunds on 10 February 2025 before Employment Judge K J Palmer sitting alone. The claimant did not attend. The respondent was represented by Mr John Brotherton, solicitor.
The written record states that the claimant’s claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, gender reassignment discrimination, and wrongful dismissal were struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) and Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The judgment records that reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment form.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) and Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; no written reasons are provided in the written record. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) and Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; no written reasons are provided in the written record. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Gender reassignment discrimination | Struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) and Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; no written reasons are provided in the written record. | Struck out | Gender reassignment | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) and Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; no written reasons are provided in the written record. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38(1)(d)
- Rule 47
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.