Case 3320699/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Timothy Carralero Trigo v Panalux Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3320699/2021
- Decision date
- 22 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Timothy Carralero Trigo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Watford hearing on 9 September 2022, Employment Judge Bedeau struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. The judgment states that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because Mr Timothy Carralero Trigo was not employed by Panalux Ltd.
The tribunal also struck out the discrimination claims. The claim of discrimination because of religion or belief was struck out because the claimant had not disclosed his religion to the respondent. The claim of discrimination because of disability was struck out because the claimant had not disclosed his Obsessive Compulsive Disorder to the respondent. The written record notes that reasons were given orally and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant was not employed by the respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant did not disclose his religion to the respondent. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out because the claimant did not disclose his Obsessive Compulsive Disorder to the respondent. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.