Case 3303034/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Polden v LCN Legal Limited and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303034/2024
- Decision date
- 5 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCooey REPRESENTATION
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mrs S Polden
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge McCooey on 5 March 2025. The claimant, Mrs S Polden, was represented by counsel and the respondent was represented by counsel. The judgment records that the respondent applied to strike out the claimant's sexual discrimination complaint under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a), but that application was refused.
The tribunal also dealt with the respondent's application for a deposit order under Employment Tribunal Rule 40 in relation to the claimant's complaints of sexual discrimination and harassment. That application was refused as well. The effect of both rulings was that the claimant's complaints were permitted to proceed.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons would be provided unless requested. No liability findings or compensation awards were made in this decision, and no remedy was assessed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | At a preliminary hearing on 5 March 2025, the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's sexual discrimination complaint under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) was refused and the complaint was allowed to proceed. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | At the same preliminary hearing, the respondent's application for a deposit order in relation to the claimant's harassment complaint under Employment Tribunal Rule 40 was refused and the complaint was allowed to proceed. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 40
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.