Case 3334412/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mensah, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3334412/2018
- Decision date
- 13 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr M Mensah, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant's victimisation claim and breach of contract claim were dismissed on withdrawal. It also held that claims about meetings in December 2017 and/or February 2018 were out of time. The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear those claims and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The remaining claims were dismissed under Rule 37 because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claimant's victimisation claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant's breach of contract claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal held that claims about meetings in December 2017 and/or February 2018 were brought out of time, that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and that those claims were therefore dismissed. The extracted text does not identify the legal label(s) for those claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal dismissed the remaining claims under Rule 37 because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The extracted text does not identify the legal label(s) for those claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37
- just and equitable to extend time
- 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.