Case 6005927/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Ruby Ley v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005927/2024
- Decision date
- 12 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heydon Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Ruby Ley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge Heydon on 7 August 2025, heard via CVP. The claimant, Ms Ruby Ley, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The judgment concerns only the respondent's strike-out application, not the underlying merits of the claim.
The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out claim 1 under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) on the ground that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The extracted judgment does not identify the legal character of claim 1, and it does not contain any findings on liability, remedies, or final disposal of the substantive claim.
Judgment was sent to the parties on 12 August 2025. No award or other remedy was recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing only. The respondent's application to strike out claim 1 under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a), on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success, was refused. The substantive nature of claim 1 is not identified in the extracted judgment text, and no merits decision or remedy was recorded. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.