Case 3307734/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr ES, lay representative For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307734/2024
- Decision date
- 16 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Dr ES, lay representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaint of harassment related to disability insofar as it concerned a failure to act on domestic abuse allegations. The stated basis was Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a), because that part of the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success.
The judgment records that the other factual aspects of the harassment related to disability proceed. The respondent's application for costs of the litigation to date was granted, and the claimant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of £2500.00.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to disability, specifically a failure to act on domestic abuse allegations, was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment states that other factual aspects of the harassment related to disability proceed. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.