Case 6002954/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Borisov v American International Group UK Limited FULL MERITS HEARING AT LONDON CENTRAL Heard on 12 September 2025 by CVP — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002954/2024
- Decision date
- 17 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Borisov
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Nicolle For heard the case at London Central on 12 September 2025. The judgment records that the entirety of Mr A Borisov's claim against American International Group UK Limited was struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The tribunal held that the basis for strike-out was that the manner in which the claimant had conducted the proceedings was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. No substantive merits findings are recorded in the judgment, and there is no award of compensation or other remedy.
Oral reasons were given to the parties at the hearing. The judgment also notes that either party could request written reasons within 14 days of the decision being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the entirety of the claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the entirety of the claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the entirety of the claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(b) 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.