Case 6013799/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Elzailaee v Carlisle Support Services Group Limited HELD AT: Liverpool (by CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013799/2024
- Decision date
- 2 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Elzailaee
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Johnson on 9 October 2025, the tribunal considered preliminary issues in Mr S Elzailaee's age discrimination proceedings against Carlisle Support Services Group Limited. The judgment records that the claimant was unrepresented and the respondent was represented by Mr Katz, solicitor.
The tribunal struck out the age discrimination complaint relating to the allegation that the claimant was not offered a permanent position whenever a vacancy arose. It held that this complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and that it was estopped by cause of action estoppel because it had already been brought in case number 2407401/2023 and struck out by Judge Porter on 26 September 2024.
The judgment states that the remaining complaints of age discrimination and victimisation in the list of issues are unaffected by this decision and will proceed to the final hearing listed for 13, 14 and 15 January 2027.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Struck out in relation to the allegation that the claimant was not offered a permanent position whenever a vacancy arose. The tribunal said the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and was barred by cause of action estoppel because it had already been brought under case number 2407401/2023 and struck out by Judge Porter on 26 September 2024. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- cause of action estoppel
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.