Case 3311465/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Robertson, litigation friend For the first v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311465/2023
- Decision date
- 17 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott Case
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr J Robertson, litigation friend For the first
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 16 and 17 December 2024, Employment Judge Elliott struck out Mrs Sandra Messi's claim. The tribunal held that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success, that the claimant had failed to comply with Tribunal orders, and that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted was unreasonable and vexatious.
The tribunal also held that the claimant was estopped from pursuing her contract-based claims by reason of a Dartford County Court judgment dated 1 November 2024. It ordered the claimant to pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of £5,000, payable by 17 January 2025. The judgment records that oral reasons were given and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days; no request was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim at a preliminary hearing. It found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success, that the claimant had failed to comply with Tribunal orders, that the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably and vexatiously, and that the claimant was estopped from pursuing her contract-based claims because of a Dartford County Court judgment dated 1 November 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,000
- across all upheld claims
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.