Case 6000053/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Sebastian Krueger v Stanhay Webb Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000053/2023
- Decision date
- 12 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sebastian Krueger
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Adkinson, sitting alone and considering the papers, struck out the whole of Sebastian Krueger's claim against Stanhay Webb Ltd on 12 April 2023. The tribunal held that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success under rule 37(1)(a) because the claim form was incomprehensible and did not set out any basis for the claims that had been ticked.
The claimant was given an opportunity on 4 April 2023 to explain why strike out should not happen, and he replied on 10 April 2023. The tribunal found that response did not clarify the claims in any way. The claimant also exhibited messages from his phone, but they were in a foreign language, untranslated, and therefore not comprehensible. The tribunal noted that it provides interpreters for hearings but not translators for work outside hearings, which is the party's responsibility.
The judge accepted that tribunals should be slow to strike out discrimination and whistleblowing claims, and also should be slow to strike out unfair dismissal claims because they are fact-sensitive. However, the judgment said there was nothing set out that explained the basis of any discrimination or whistleblowing claim, and it was not even clear whether the claimant alleged dismissal or why any dismissal was said to be unfair. The tribunal decided that a preliminary hearing to seek clarification would not be appropriate because the respondent and tribunal would have no idea what the case was about, a fair trial was not possible, and no lesser sanction was appropriate.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The claim form and the claimant's response of 10 April 2023 did not clarify the basis of the sex discrimination claim. The tribunal found the material incomprehensible and concluded the whole claim had no reasonable prospect of success under rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said it was not even clear whether dismissal was alleged, let alone why it was said to be unfair. The unfair dismissal aspect was therefore struck out with the rest of the claim under rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- overriding objective
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.