Case 6010450/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Ms S Iyevkova v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge and 4 others — 2026

Case reference: 6010450/2024
Decision date: 20 May 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Arullendran REPRESENTATION
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 9 July 2026

Parties

6 named

Claimant

Ms S Iyevkova

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a hearing at Watford Employment Tribunal on 20 May 2026, Employment Judge Arullendran recorded that the claims concerning the acts and omissions of the Second, Third and Fifth respondents were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment does not set out the underlying legal causes of action or written reasons for that conclusion.

The claimant withdrew all complaints against the Fourth respondent. Those complaints were not dismissed because they were maintained against the First respondent. The judgment records that the remaining claims will proceed to a final hearing.

No remedy was awarded or assessed in this judgment. The written record states that summary reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This 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
Other	The judgment does not identify the legal causes of action for the claims concerning the acts and omissions of the Second, Third and Fifth respondents; those claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success.	Struck out	—	—
Other	The judgment does not identify the legal causes of action for the complaints against the Fourth respondent; those complaints were withdrawn by the claimant but not dismissed because they were maintained against the First respondent.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.