Case 3313566/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Griffiths v Buckinghamshire Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313566/2023
- Decision date
- 30 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloch KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Griffiths
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 16 January 2025, Employment Judge Bloch KC considered Miss Griffiths' applications to strike out Buckinghamshire Council's ET3 and grounds of resistance, made by email on 27 September 2024 and again in similar terms on 1 October 2024. The application was refused.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant presented her claim on 30 November 2023, that the respondent's response was due on 18 April 2024, and that the respondent had applied on 27 March 2024 for an extension to 10 May 2024. When the tribunal did not respond, the respondent was advised by a tribunal office employee to submit its response by 10 May 2024. It filed a short ET3 on 18 April 2024 to protect its position, indicating that it intended to contest the claims, and then filed a detailed substantive response on 10 May 2024. The tribunal later sent a letter dated 5 June 2024 confirming acceptance of the response, and noted that the claimant did not see the fuller grounds of resistance until shortly before the case management hearing.
The tribunal held that the claimant's reliance on Rules 12 and 13 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 was misplaced because those rules concern rejected claims and the claim had been accepted. It also held that Rule 37 did not justify strike out on the facts presented. The judge rejected the claimant's complaint about the respondent asking her to take legal advice, saying the respondent was acting properly in doing so.
Even if there had been a basis for strike out, the tribunal said it would not have exercised its discretion to grant the application. It found the respondent had behaved reasonably in the circumstances, that a fair trial remained possible, and that striking out the response would be highly prejudicial to the respondent because it could otherwise be found responsible for acts of discrimination and other serious matters without the opportunity to test the claimant's case. No substantive liability or remedy issue was determined at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claimant's preliminary application to strike out the respondent's ET3 and grounds of resistance was refused; the tribunal made no substantive liability finding on the underlying claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rules 12 and 13 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.