Case 6014552/2024 · Employment Tribunal
L Lowry v Robert Kirby London Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014552/2024
- Decision date
- 6 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Lowry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case of L Lowry v Robert Kirby London Ltd, case number 6014552/2024, was heard at London South by CVP on 6 March 2025 before Employment Judge Rice-Birchall. The written judgment records a single outcome: 'The claim is struck out.' No further reasons are included in the extracted text.
The judgment notes that the decision was approved on 6 March 2025 and sent to the parties on 23 April 2025. It also states that the reasons had been given orally at the hearing, so written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent. No remedy was recorded.
The extracted judgment does not identify the claim-by-claim legal basis in the body of the decision. The GOV.UK listing category for the case refers to breach of contract, working time regulations, and written pay statement issues, but the written judgment itself only records the strike-out order and does not explain which underlying allegations were considered in detail.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment records that 'the claim is struck out' but does not identify a separate remedy or set out written reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment records that 'the claim is struck out' but does not identify a separate remedy or set out written reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Used for the 'written pay statement' element in the GOV.UK listing category; the written judgment itself does not specify a separate legal label. | Struck 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.