Case 3335280/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Gerlin v Lindab Ltd and others — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335280/2018
- Decision date
- 16 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A V Gerlin's claim against Lindab Limited and six named individual respondents was heard in Cambridge on 16 August 2019 before Employment Judge Michell sitting alone. The judgment dismisses the claim because the claimant failed to comply with the requirements of section 18A(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 before presenting it, and the exception in section 18A(7) did not apply on the facts.
The judgment records no substantive findings on the merits of the pleaded allegations and does not make any monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Dismissed because the claimant failed to comply with section 18A(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 before presenting the claim, and section 18A(7) did not apply. The judgment does not determine the merits of the underlying allegations. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 18A(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Section 18A(7) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
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
- Open official judgment 4 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.