Case 6023042/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ridley v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023042/2025
- Decision date
- 1 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Representation
- Venue
- East London Tribunal Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ridley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing in which Mr A Ridley’s application for interim relief against Network Rail Infrastructure Limited was considered at the East London Tribunal Hearing Centre on 13 August 2025 before Employment Judge Shore. The claimant did not appear. The respondent was represented by Mr A Bachu, Counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 after considering the information available and being satisfied that all practicable enquiries had been made. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
In the alternative, the judge said the application would have been dismissed in any event because the remedy sought was reinstatement when the claimant remained employed by the respondent. The judge also recorded that it would not be in the interests of justice or the overriding objective to relist what was described as a hopeless application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application for interim relief dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 because the claimant did not attend. The judge said that, in the alternative, the application would also have been dismissed because the remedy sought was reinstatement while the claimant remained employed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective
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.