Case 6001048/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Erin Dooley v University of Bristol — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001048/2024
- Decision date
- 25 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Erin Dooley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Woodhead in Bristol on 23 October 2025. The Respondent, University of Bristol, applied to strike out under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 in respect of issues 17.1, 18.1 and 41.1.1 on the list of issues that accompanied the Record of Preliminary Hearing dated 18 July 2025.
The tribunal dismissed the strike out application. The written judgment records that reasons were explained orally at the hearing, and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within the stated time limit. No substantive findings on the underlying discrimination or unfair dismissal claims are set out in this short decision, and no remedy was determined.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's application under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to strike out issues 17.1, 18.1 and 41.1.1 on the list of issues was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.