Case 6000923/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Barry L’Sullivan v Serco Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6000923/2025
- Decision date
- 11 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCann REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Barry L’Sullivan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 11 August 2026, Employment Judge McCann refused the application to strike out Barry L’Sullivan’s complaints of age discrimination and age-related harassment against Serco Limited as having no reasonable prospects of success under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. This was a procedural decision and did not determine whether either complaint succeeded on its merits.
The Tribunal reserved for the final hearing whether the age discrimination and harassment claim was presented within the applicable time limit and, if not, whether it would be just and equitable to extend time. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written judgment records no further reasoning or monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The application to strike out was refused. The merits were not determined; time limits and any just and equitable extension were reserved for the final hearing. | Other | Age | — |
| Harassment | The application to strike out the age-related harassment complaint was refused. The merits were not determined; time limits and any just and equitable extension were reserved for the final hearing. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024: 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.