Case 3305302/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kanth (legal consultant) For the v Mr Griffiths-Jones (solicitor) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305302/2020
- Decision date
- 6 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dobbie
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kanth (legal consultant) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Cambridge on 7 June 2022, Employment Judge Dobbie sat alone and heard the Respondent's application to strike out the claims in Mr G Austin v Altro Limited. The Claimant was represented by Mr Kanth, legal consultant, and the Respondent by Mr Griffiths-Jones, solicitor.
The tribunal ruled orally that the Respondent's application to strike out the claims failed and was refused. The extracted written record does not set out the underlying factual allegations, the legal basis for the strike-out application, or any substantive determination of the claims themselves.
The written record dated 17 June 2022 and sent to the parties on 6 July 2022 notes that, because reasons were given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records only that the Respondent's application to strike out the claims was refused. It does not determine the underlying claims or identify them in the extracted text. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.