Case 3305564/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Marsh (friend) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305564/2023
- Decision date
- 25 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew Clarke
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr B Marsh (friend) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 13 December 2023 before Employment Judge Andrew Clarke KC, the claimant applied to amend the claim so as to add complaints about protected disclosures under s.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, victimisation under s.27 of the Equality Act 2010, and detriment suffered in the capacity of a safety representative under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977. The tribunal dismissed that amendment application.
The judgment then records that, pursuant to Rule 37(1)(a) and/or (b), each claim made by the claimant was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and/or because of the unreasonable manner in which the proceedings had been conducted. The written decision does not set out any monetary award or any split between claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment does not identify the individual underlying claims separately. It states that the claimant's application to amend the claim to add protected-disclosure claims under s.47B ERA 1996, victimisation under s.27 EqA 2010, and detriment as a safety representative under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 was dismissed, and that each claim made by the claimant was then struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and/or (b). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a) and/or (b) Employment Tribunals Rules
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.