Case 6004651/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Josmin Thupparamban Jose v RVB Transcendence Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004651/2024
- Decision date
- 18 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Josmin Thupparamban Jose
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was heard at London South by CVP on 14 January 2025 before Employment Judge Yardley sitting alone. The parties were Mr Josmin Thupparamban Jose, appearing in person, and RVB Transcendence Limited, represented by Ms Veimou of Peninsula.
The judgment records only interlocutory applications. The respondent applied for strike-out and for a deposit order, and both applications were refused. No substantive liability findings, claim categorisation, or remedy award are set out in the judgment text provided.
Accordingly, this record captures the refusal of the respondent's applications rather than a merits decision on the underlying proceedings. The decision was sent to the parties on 18 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment only records that the respondent's applications for a strike-out and a deposit order were refused. It does not identify or determine any substantive claim. | Other | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.