Case 3313210/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Stewart v Project Audio Visual Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313210/2023
- Decision date
- 11 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Milner-Moore REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 14 October 2024, Employment Judge Milner-Moore struck out three complaints under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The struck-out complaints were indirect age discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, and detriment for making a protected disclosure under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment records that the strike-out was partial only. The claimant's remaining claims were not determined at that hearing and were left listed for a case management hearing on 27 November 2024.
No monetary award was made in this judgment, and no remedy findings were recorded because the tribunal disposed of the listed complaints by strike-out rather than by liability findings after a full hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Indirect age discrimination complaint struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaint struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detrimental treatment for making a protected disclosure under section 47B ERA 1996 was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. | 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.