Case 3312731/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Neckles (1) (3312731/2020) PTSC Union (2) (3312744/2020) v The Abbeyfield Society t/a Abbeyfield — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312731/2020
- Decision date
- 8 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Neckles (1) (3312731/2020) PTSC Union (2) (3312744/2020)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge, sitting alone, struck out each claim because it had no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment does not identify a more specific substantive claim type in the extracted text, so the disposition is recorded generically as strike out rather than as a determination on the merits.
The respondent also applied for strike out on the basis that the proceedings had been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner, but that application was refused. No merits findings were made on the underlying allegations in the extracted judgment.
Costs were ordered against both claimants: Mr J Neckles was ordered to pay £910.50 and PTSC Union was ordered to pay £910.50, making a total costs order of £1,821. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons to follow.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The First Claimant's claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. The First Claimant was ordered to pay £910.50 to the Respondent for legal costs. | Struck out | — | £911 |
| Other | The Second Claimant's claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. The Second Claimant was ordered to pay £910.50 to the Respondent for legal costs. | Struck out | — | £911 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,821
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospects of success
- scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.