Case 3320069/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Thorpe, HR director — 2019
- Case reference
- 3320069/2019
- Decision date
- 19 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Daniels For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a telephone hearing on 2 April 2020 before Employment Judge Daniels, the tribunal considered the claimant's letter dated 19 October 2019 and his claim form. The judgment records that the claim was struck out under rule 37.
The tribunal said the claimant had breached the order of Judge Bedeau dated October 2019 because he failed to set out grounds for why the claim should not be struck out for lack of jurisdiction. It also held that the unfair dismissal claim based on health and safety reasons had no reasonable prospect of success.
The judgment further states that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint because none of the exceptions to the 2-year service rule applied. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to set out grounds opposing strike out for lack of jurisdiction; the tribunal also found the unfair dismissal claim based on health and safety reasons had no reasonable prospect of success and that none of the exceptions to the 2-year service rule applied. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
- 2-year service rule
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.