Case 6008075/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ian Simpson v Vantage Motor Group Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008075/2024
- Decision date
- 20 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Appearances
- Venue
- Sheffield in public
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ian Simpson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a record of a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Brain sitting alone in public by video link on 20 June 2025. The respondent, Vantage Motor Group Limited, applied to strike out the claimant's response to the complaint of harassment under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a). The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal refused the strike-out application. It stated that it could not be said that the response to the complaint of harassment had no reasonable prospect of success, and accordingly the complaint was not struck out on that ground. No substantive determination of the harassment complaint was made at this hearing, and no remedy was awarded.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard procedure. The judgment therefore records only the strike-out ruling and not any wider findings on liability.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | At a preliminary hearing, the respondent's application to strike out the complaint of harassment under Rule 38(1)(a) was refused. The tribunal held that it could not be said that the response to the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | 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.