Case 6014325/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Lucien Michel Rebouh v Resolute Corporation Services UK Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6014325/2025
- Decision date
- 21 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lucien Michel Rebouh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered the respondent's strike-out applications and clarified the claims. The tribunal permitted amendment of the respondent's name after the respondent withdrew its application to strike out on the basis of incorrect naming.
The tribunal struck out ordinary unfair dismissal because the claimant did not have two years' service, and struck out data protection breach, defamation and blacklisting as outside the employment tribunal's jurisdiction. It also struck out any wrongful dismissal claim because the claimant confirmed he had not meant to bring wrongful dismissal in the legal sense.
The tribunal did not permit the claimant to amend to add automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing. It struck out the harassment claim concerning the Executive Assistant because no protected characteristic was identified, and struck out victimisation because the claimant was not using that term in the legal Equality Act sense. The tribunal did not decide the breach of contract claim or the separate Equality Act harassment claim against the Group Financial Controller.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal was struck out because it was not disputed that the claimant did not have the necessary two years' minimum service. Permission to amend to add automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing was not granted. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal struck out the wrongful dismissal claim, if it existed at all, because the claimant confirmed he did not mean wrongful dismissal in the legal sense. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | Only the harassment claim concerning the Executive Assistant was struck out because the claimant was not suggesting it related to any protected characteristic. The tribunal did not deal with any strike-out application concerning the separate Equality Act harassment claim against the Group Financial Controller. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found the claimant did not intend victimisation in the legal sense under the Equality Act 2010 and struck out the victimisation claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Defamation was struck out because it was not within the employment tribunal's jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Data protection breach was struck out because it was not within the employment tribunal's jurisdiction. |
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.