Case 3304139/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E. S. McElevey v Wycombe Badminton Centre Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304139/2023
- Decision date
- 10 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E. S. McElevey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short preliminary judgment in which Employment Judge Quill, sitting alone at Watford on 22 July 2024, recorded that the only respondent to the claim was Wycombe Badminton Centre Ltd. The judgment also noted that no claim had been presented against Alistair Jones as a second respondent and that, in any event, the claimant had not obtained an early conciliation certificate for him by the date the claim form was presented.
The tribunal stated that an attempt to name Alistair Jones as a second respondent in the claim form would have been rejected under Rule 12, or else struck out at a later date. The only operative decision recorded in the judgment was that the claim was not struck out.
No merits findings are set out in this written judgment, and no remedy or compensation is recorded. The judgment therefore resolves only the preliminary strike-out issue, not the substantive employment claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary decision only: the tribunal held that the claim was not struck out. This written record does not contain any merits determination or remedy. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 12
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.