Case 3321348/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Pekacar v London Borough of Islington and others — 2021
- Case reference
- 3321348/2019
- Decision date
- 17 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Pekacar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote hearing at Watford on 28 September 2021 before Employment Judge Knowles, with the Claimant appearing in person and the Respondent represented by Mr Porter, Counsel. The tribunal dealt with an application to strike out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The judgment states that the Claimant’s claim against Mr R Willis under case number 3301264/2021 was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. No substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claim are set out in the extracted text.
The reasons were sent to the parties on 17 November 2021. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment only states that the Claimant’s claim against Mr R Willis in case number 3301264/2021 was struck out under Rule 37 because it had no reasonable prospect of success. It does not identify the underlying legal claim in the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.