Case 3313964/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Yum! III (UK) Ltd and others — 2022
- Case reference
- 3313964/2021
- Decision date
- 5 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote preliminary hearing held by CVP on 5 September 2022, before Employment Judge de Silva QC, the claimant appeared in person. The first, third and fourth respondents were represented by Tufail Hussain and the second respondent by Ashley Powis. The judgment records that a face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all issues could be determined remotely.
The tribunal made two operative strike-out orders. The claim against the Second Respondent was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success, and the claim against the Fourth Respondent was struck out for the same reason. The written decision does not identify the substantive claim type or record any monetary remedy.
The record also states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written record does not identify the substantive claim type. The claim against the Second Respondent was struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The written record does not identify the substantive claim type. The claim against the Fourth Respondent was struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
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.