Case 3301646/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nobbs Mr Bobbin v First Home Improvements (England) Ltd Mr Gibson — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301646/2023
- Decision date
- 19 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Nobbs Mr Bobbin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 30 January 2024, the respondent applied under rule 37 to strike out the claims on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success and/or because the claimants had not complied with an earlier order requiring further information by 23 February 2024. The respondent also sought, in the alternative, an Unless Order. The application was decided on the papers.
The tribunal held that the information supplied on 10 April 2024 was adequate to comply with the earlier order. It said that, if the respondent's position was that there had been no protected disclosure, that was a matter for the final hearing. The tribunal also said the respondent's point that it was not in fact subject to the legal obligation identified by the claimants was not a suitable basis for strike out on the no reasonable prospect ground.
Although the tribunal said the compliance with the order was late and that there did not necessarily seem to be any excuse, it considered strike out disproportionate because a fair trial starting on 13 August could still take place. It said that, if any sanction were to be imposed for the lateness, it would have to be something short of strike out. The final hearing remained listed as previously notified.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The respondent's rule 37 strike-out application failed; neither claim was struck out, and the underlying claims remained listed for final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
- proportionality
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.