Case 3305308/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Howarth v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305308/2020
- Decision date
- 13 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Howarth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the complaints described as "Bullying and Harassment" and "Redundancy Payment". It had previously written to the claimant on 17 September 2020 giving him an opportunity to make representations as to why those complaints should not be struck out.
The reasons given were that the bullying and harassment complaint did not identify any potential characteristic relied on or the dates or approximate dates of the alleged acts, and that the redundancy payment complaint did not explain why the claimant said he was entitled to such a payment when, on his own case, he had been dismissed for alleged gross misconduct. The claimant failed to make written representations, or sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claims remained listed for hearing on 28 April 2021; those remaining claims were not adjudicated in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The complaint was described in the judgment as "Bullying and Harassment". It was struck out after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations; the judgment states the complaint did not identify any potential characteristic relied on or the dates of the alleged acts. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The redundancy payment complaint was struck out after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations explaining why he claimed entitlement to a redundancy payment when, on his own case, he had been dismissed for alleged gross misconduct. | Struck out | — | — |
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.