Case 6011856/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Fielding v Premiserv Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6011856/2024
- Decision date
- 17 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Fielding
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 10 December 2024 before Employment Judge Lloyd, the respondent applied to have the claim struck out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The respondent's position was that the claimant had not particularised his claim.
The tribunal refused the application. It held that, after the claimant had explained the grounds of his claim, it would be contrary to the interests of justice and disproportionate to strike the claim out. The tribunal also noted that there was no suggestion from either party that a fair hearing could not now proceed, and that any prejudice to the respondent had been reduced by robust case management.
The judgment records that case management issues were dealt with in a separate note and that the parties should progress matters without further delay. The written record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's rule 37 strike-out application. The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim, and no merits decision was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37 strike out
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.