Case 3311135/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311135/2022
- Decision date
- 25 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 23 February 2023 at Watford by Cloud Video Platform, Employment Judge Hyams sat alone. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Miss Wendy Miller of counsel. The tribunal said the claimant's case could properly be understood only as a claim for damages for breach of contract or a sum due under a contract.
The tribunal found that claim had no reasonable prospect of success and that there was no good reason why it should not be struck out. It therefore struck out the breach of contract claim. The tribunal also recorded that there was no other claim made in the proceedings and no other viable claim could be made on the facts stated in the ET1 claim form as explained orally by the claimant on 23 February 2023.
On that basis, the claims made in the proceedings were dismissed. No monetary award was made and the judgment did not identify any split of remedy between claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal said the claimant's case could properly be understood only as a claim for damages for breach of contract or a sum due under a contract, and that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.