Case 3312988/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person Second Claimant: In person v Mr Bownes (Solicitor) PRELIMINARY HEARING IN PUBLIC — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312988/2021
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person Second Claimant: In person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Cambridge by CVP on 25 April and 10 May 2023, Employment Judge Forde ordered that the claim be struck out in its entirety under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a). The written judgment sent to the parties on 21 March 2024 records that the claim was treated as vexatious.
The tribunal's stated reason was that the claimants had already presented the same claims encompassing the same issues in case number 3312985/2021, or had presented claims in respect of which the Employment Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. No substantive merits findings were made on the underlying allegations.
No remedy was awarded. The note to the judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it was vexatious. The reason given was that the claimants had already presented the same claims and issues in case number 3312985/2021, or had presented claims outside the Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
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.