Case 6001304/2023 · Employment Tribunal
J Penalva v Marlborough College — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001304/2023
- Decision date
- 2 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Penalva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case of J Penalva v Marlborough College was heard at Bristol by video on 30 April 2024 before Employment Judge Ferguson, with the claimant unrepresented and the respondent represented by counsel. The judgment states that the claim was dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal also recorded that, had the claim not been dismissed under Rule 47, it would in any event have been struck out under Rule 37 because it had no reasonable prospect of success and because the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the claimant was scandalous. No substantive findings on the merits of any underlying discrimination or whistleblowing allegations are set out in the written judgment, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type. The heading and listing use case number 6001304/2023, and the body repeats it once as 601304/2023. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.