Case 3328100/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Harland v The Hospice of St Francis — 2019
- Case reference
- 3328100/2017
- Decision date
- 2 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Harland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Watford on 2 January 2019, before Employment Judge McNeill QC sitting alone, the tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The reason given was that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing the two years' service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal also recorded that the balance of the claimant's claims were permitted to proceed insofar as they fell within amendments to his particulars of claim that had been granted on the same date. The record supplied does not identify those remaining claims by name or set out any merits findings on them.
No deposit order was made and no monetary award was recorded in this preliminary decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at the preliminary hearing under Rule 37 because the tribunal found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing the two years' service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records that the balance of the claimant's claims were permitted to proceed insofar as they fell within the amendments to his particulars of claim granted on 2 January 2019, but it does not identify those claims by type in the supplied text. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37
- two years' service requirement
- 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.