Case 3307765/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr. M. Ramsbottom – Representative — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307765/2023
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grahame Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Cambridge via CVP on 7 January 2025 before Employment Judge Grahame Anderson, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr M. Ramsbottom. It refused the claimant's application to amend his claim to add a complaint of sexual harassment. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal also struck out the claimant's complaint under reg. 30(1)(a)(i) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, in which he said the respondent had not permitted annual or additional annual leave under regs. 13 and 13A. The respondent's other strike-out applications were refused. The written record does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The claimant's application to amend his claim to add a complaint of sexual harassment was refused. This was not a final determination of the merits of any substantive harassment complaint. | Other | Sex | — |
| Working time regulations | The claimant's complaint under reg. 30(1)(a)(i) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, alleging that the respondent did not permit him to take annual or additional annual leave pursuant to reg. 13 and reg. 13A, was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Selkent Bus Company v Moore (1996) UKEAT 151
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.