Case 6006261/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Wild v Sales Group Support and 4 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006261/2024
- Decision date
- 3 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen Representation
- Venue
- Watford Tribunal
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Mrs T Wild
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mrs T Wild's breach of contract claim, which alleged that the respondent had broken its own disciplinary process. The respondent had applied for strike out on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, and the claimant opposed the application. A public preliminary hearing took place on 28 April 2025 before Employment Judge Cowen.
In deciding the application, the tribunal considered the contract terms and conditions in the bundle. It noted that paragraph 17.1 under 'Grievance and Disciplinary' stated that the company grievance and disciplinary procedures were available from Human Resources and, 'for the avoidance of doubt', were non-contractual.
The tribunal also referred to Johnson v Unisys [2001] UKHL 13 and concluded that the claimant had no realistic prospect of success on the breach of contract claim. The claim was therefore struck out. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim was struck out. The header refers to a strike out judgment under rule 37, while the reasons refer to the respondent's application under rule 38(a) for no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38(a) strike out
- Johnson v Unisys [2001] UKHL 13
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.