Case 3301920/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Steven Abrahams v Loading Bay Specialists Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301920/2023
- Decision date
- 24 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms B Osborne, Mr N Boustred
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Steven Abrahams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rules r37(1)(b). The judgment does not include written reasons; it records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
The tribunal also granted the respondent's application for a preparation time order under rule 76. The claimant was ordered to pay a proportion of the respondent's costs in the total sum of £1,250, and the remaining listed hearing dates were vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rules r37(1)(b), but it does not set out written reasons or distinguish outcomes by claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rules r37(1)(b), but it does not set out written reasons or distinguish outcomes by claim type. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rules r37(1)(b), but it does not set out written reasons or distinguish outcomes by claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,250
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rules r37(1)(b)
- rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
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.