Case 6002991/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Niba First v Second Respondent: Resilient Recruitment Limited ResRec Limited HELD AT: Manchester (in public; attended) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6002991/2025
- Decision date
- 13 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Niba First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant's breach of contract claims. Those claims were struck out under Rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The Tribunal declined to strike out the claimant's direct age and race discrimination claims. Those claims were not determined on their merits in this judgment and were recorded as proceeding to a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal stated it did not have jurisdiction to consider the breach of contract claims and struck them out under Rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The Tribunal did not strike out the direct age discrimination claim; it was to proceed to a hearing. The merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal did not strike out the direct race discrimination claim; it was to proceed to a hearing. The merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1) of the 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.