Case 3323555/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Johnson v Place of Progress Ltd and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 3323555/2021
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coen
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr J Johnson
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary issues judgment, heard by Employment Judge Coen sitting alone at Watford by CVP on 28 February 2023 and 3 March 2023. The tribunal dealt with amendment, strike-out and party-removal applications rather than the substantive merits of the case.
The claimant's application to amend his claim in respect of issues 6 and 7 was refused. His application to amend his claim to add victimisation in relation to the appeal against his dismissal, identified as issue 9, was permitted. The respondents' application to remove Ms Kalunga as the third respondent was refused.
The respondents' application to strike out the claimant's claims was also refused. The judgment records no liability findings on the underlying claims and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | At a preliminary issues hearing, the claimant's application to amend his claim to plead victimisation in relation to the appeal against his dismissal (issue 9) was permitted. The merits of any victimisation claim were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's application to amend his claim in respect of issues 6 and 7 was refused. The extracted text does not identify the underlying substantive claim type(s). | Other | — | — |
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.