Case 3323828/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3323828/2021
- Decision date
- 1 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Manley Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee of Flamble Limited at the material time. It also found that, even if there had been employment, that employment had not been terminated at the material time.
On that basis, the claims described in the judgment as constructive unfair dismissal, redundancy pay and notice pay had no reasonable prospects of success and were struck out at the preliminary hearing. The judgment does not record substantive merits findings on those claims beyond the strike-out reasons.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had acted unreasonably in conducting the proceedings and ordered payment of the respondent's costs: solicitor's costs of £5,000, counsel's fees of £6,000 and VAT of £2,200, making a total of £13,200.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim for "constructive unfair dismissal"; it was struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out at the preliminary hearing for having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,200
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospects 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.