Case 3323747/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hamilton v Saba Park Services UK Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3323747/2017
- Decision date
- 14 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Daniels
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Hamilton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 1 May 2019 before Employment Judge Daniels sitting alone, the tribunal struck out the claimant’s breach of contract claim in respect of a 2018 bonus award and his breach of contract claim in respect of holiday pay. In each instance, the tribunal found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out forthwith.
The respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s claims for unreasonable conduct and/or breach of a tribunal order was not successful. The tribunal therefore did not make any adverse order on that application at this hearing.
The remainder of the judgment was case management. The tribunal amended the respondent’s name to Saba Park Services UK Ltd, made unless orders requiring the claimant to particularise the allegations by reference to the respondent’s table of allegations, and listed further case management steps and a future preliminary hearing. No substantive liability findings or monetary remedy were determined in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim in respect of a 2018 bonus award. The tribunal held it had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out forthwith. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim in respect of holiday pay. The tribunal held it had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out forthwith. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- rule 37
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.