Case 3313817/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Landels (Associate) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313817/2022
- Decision date
- 5 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dobbie Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written judgment records that the Claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. No substantive merits findings are given on that claim in the written record.
The tribunal also dealt with two victimisation allegations tied to different emails. The victimisation claim predicated on an alleged protected act contained in the email dated 15 September 2022 was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. In contrast, the Respondent's application to strike out the victimisation claim predicated on the protected act in the email dated 21 October 2022 was dismissed, and that claim was allowed to proceed to the full merits hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim predicated on an alleged protected act in the email dated 15 September 2022 was struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | The Respondent's application to strike out the victimisation claim predicated on the protected act in the email dated 21 October 2022 was dismissed, and that claim was allowed to go forward to the full merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.