Case 6013941/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McFarlane v Mr Glenn Wilson and Ms Kirsty Taylor t/a The Rivergarden Bar & Kitchen RECORD OF A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013941/2024
- Decision date
- 6 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A McFarlane
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's application dated 18 August 2025 to strike out the response on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success, contained scandalous and vexatious material, and amounted to improper conduct in the proceedings.
Employment Judge Alliott stated that, for the purpose of the strike-out application, the tribunal had to proceed on the basis that the respondent would establish the facts and matters set out in its response. The judge found that deciding whether the claimant was correct in disputing the response would require hearing and seeing all the evidence at a full merits hearing.
The tribunal concluded that it could not say the response had no reasonable prospect of success, contained scandalous or vexatious material, or amounted to improper conduct of the litigation. The claimant's strike-out application was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Public preliminary hearing judgment dismissing the claimant's application to strike out the response; the substantive unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claims were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.