Case 6009117/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Roberts, of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6009117/2025
- Decision date
- 26 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A Roberts, of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a fourth claim alleging victimisation arising from the respondents' correspondence about, and commencement of, High Court proceedings against her for breach of contract and breach of confidence. The preliminary issue before the tribunal was whether judicial proceedings immunity barred that claim.
The tribunal considered authorities including Dempsey, Chief Constable of Sussex v XGY, and Rogerson. It found that the pleaded detriments were sufficiently connected with the High Court litigation and that the claim was barred by judicial proceedings immunity.
Accordingly, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that judicial proceedings immunity applied and that it had no jurisdiction to consider the victimisation claim. The claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- judicial proceedings immunity
- Dempsey v Maitland Hudson & Co LLP
- Chief Constable of Sussex v XGY
- Rogerson v Erhard-Jensen Ontological/Phenomenological Initiative Ltd
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Igen Ltd v Wong
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.