Case 3303786/2023 · Employment Tribunal

In person. For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 3303786/2023
Decision date: 18 October 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge L Brown Appearances
Venue: Cambridge

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person. For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was an in-person preliminary hearing at Cambridge before Employment Judge L Brown on 6 September 2023. The respondent, Axflow Limited, applied to strike out the claimant's claims. The claimant, Mr G Dewar, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.

The tribunal dismissed the respondent's application. The judgment records that the application for a strike out of the claimant's claims failed, but it does not determine the substantive merits of the claims themselves. No final findings were made on liability for either the age discrimination claim or the unfair dismissal claim.

The judgment therefore leaves the claimant's claims to proceed. No remedy was awarded or assessed in this decision, and no split of compensation between claims is recorded.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	At a preliminary hearing, the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's age discrimination claim was dismissed; no merits determination was made.	Other	Age	—
Unfair dismissal	At a preliminary hearing, the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed; no merits determination was made.	Other	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.