Sajida B Patel v Bill Tidnam CEO — 2025

Case reference: 6009966/2024
Decision date: 20 November 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Corrigan Date

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Sajida B Patel

Respondent

Bill Tidnam CEO

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal warned the claimant on 20 November 2025 that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success. The reason given was that the claimant had not complied with the early conciliation requirements, meaning the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The claimant replied and confirmed that she had not obtained an Early Conciliation certificate. She did not provide an Early Conciliation number, did not show that an exemption applied, and did not rectify the defect by obtaining a certificate. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Rule 38 grounds applied and that striking out the claim was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment does not identify or adjudicate the individual claim types; it strikes out the claim because the claimant had not complied with early conciliation requirements and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.