Case 6012285/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Mort v Abc Education Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6012285/2025
- Decision date
- 26 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Mort
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out several claims. It held that the applications in respect of unfair dismissal and age discrimination were well-founded, and those claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal dismissed the respondent's application to strike out the disability discrimination claim, but found that the disability discrimination claims had little reasonable prospects of success and made a deposit order in separate terms. It also dismissed the application to strike out the victimisation claim, which was to continue until determined at a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent's strike-out application was dismissed, but the tribunal found the disability discrimination claims had little reasonable prospects of success and made a deposit order in separate terms. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The respondent's strike-out application was dismissed and the victimisation claim was to continue to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospects of success
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.