Case 6007689/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Thompson v Cripps Utilities Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007689/2024
- Decision date
- 28 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing on 22 May 2025. The tribunal took reasonable steps to contact him and, having done so, proceeded in his absence under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst sitting alone in Reading.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant did not have the required length of service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The age discrimination claim and the harassment claim related to age were also struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because the tribunal considered that they had no reasonable prospects of success.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was not an employee and/or worker of the respondent at the relevant time for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Equality Act 2010, and the Working Time Regulations 1998. On that basis, the protected disclosure, race discrimination and harassment, victimisation, arrears of pay, and Working Time Regulations claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have the required length of service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Harassment | Age-related harassment was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee and/or worker of the respondent at the relevant time and so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination and race-related harassment were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant was not an employee and/or worker at the relevant time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant was not an employee and/or worker at the relevant time. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 38(1)(a) 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.