Case 6022025/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ashley Freeman v Mitie Limited and 2 others — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022025/2025
- Decision date
- 12 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eoin Fowell
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr Ashley Freeman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 12 August 2026, the tribunal considered Mr Freeman's single complaint of unfair dismissal. It struck out the claim against the Bank of England as having no reasonable prospect of success because Mr Freeman had never been employed by the Bank. The Bank's involvement was as the client that made a service provision change from Mitie Limited to Amulet (Churchill Security Solutions) Limited.
The tribunal refused Amulet's application to strike out the claim against it because it could not be said that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was listed to proceed to a hearing on 3 November 2026. The Bank was ordered to disclose documents relevant to the decision to remove Mr Freeman from the grouping of employees before the transfer. No final merits decision or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only. The single complaint was struck out against the Bank of England, but Amulet's strike-out application was refused and the claim remains pending; the judgment records no final merits outcome against Mitie Limited or Amulet. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect 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.