Case 6010977/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Lock v London Borough of Kingston Unison Branch and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6010977/2024
- Decision date
- 19 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baran
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms M Lock
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 17 June 2026, Employment Judge Baran, sitting alone, struck out Ms Lock’s discrimination complaints against the second respondent, Unison, pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The tribunal found that the complaints had no reasonable prospect of success. The written judgment does not identify the discrimination types or protected characteristics.
Summary reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment records no monetary remedy and does not determine any complaint against the first respondent, London Borough of Kingston Unison Branch, or any unfair dismissal or unlawful deduction from wages complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out the discrimination complaints against the second respondent, Unison, but does not identify their statutory discrimination types or protected characteristics. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- No reasonable prospect of success under rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.