Case 6027626/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stephen Nertey v Angel Approved Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6027626/2025
- Decision date
- 13 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stephen Nertey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused interim relief. It found that interim relief is not available for unfair dismissal claims generally, that the statutory circumstances identified in section 128(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply, and that any application was brought more than seven days after dismissal.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not made a separate application for interim relief beyond ticking the relevant box on the claim form, and that the claim also included race discrimination. It held that the claim could not be rejected at that stage despite the apparent early conciliation issue, referring to Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Clark.
A further public preliminary hearing was listed for 25 November 2025 to consider whether the claims should be struck out in whole or in part, including because of length of service, time limits, and the early conciliation exemption. The respondent's name was changed by agreement to Angel Approved Limited.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application for interim relief was refused. The tribunal stated interim relief was not available for the unfair dismissal claim as pleaded, the claim was brought more than four months after dismissal, and the claimant had only ticked the relevant box on the claim form. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The substantive unfair dismissal claim was not decided. A further preliminary hearing was listed to consider whether to strike out the claim, including on length of service, time limit, and early conciliation exemption grounds. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The substantive race discrimination claim was not decided. The tribunal noted it was included in the claim and listed a further preliminary hearing to consider strike out and time limit issues. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 128(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 128(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Clark [2023] EWCA Civ 386
- rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- rule 53 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- no reasonable prospect
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- little 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.