Case 3311466/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. L I T Asaiah- Asher v Carers In Hertfordshire — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311466/2023
- Decision date
- 16 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Daley Date
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. L I T Asaiah- Asher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford on 4 September 2024, Employment Judge Daley considered the claimant's complaints of detriment within the meaning of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, automatically unfair dismissal, and breach of contract. The judgment records that the claimant was represented by himself and the respondent by a litigation consultant.
The tribunal struck out the claims under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. No findings on liability were made beyond that strike-out decision, and the judgment does not record any hearing on the merits.
No remedy was awarded. The written decision was sent to the parties on 16 November 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Detriment within the meaning of s.43B ERA 1996 was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- s.43B ERA 1996
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.