Case 6033646/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ashley Wells v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6033646/2025
- Decision date
- 15 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ashley Wells
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Ashley Wells's complaint of sex discrimination against Lidl Great Britain Ltd. On 5 May 2026, the Tribunal warned Mr Wells that the complaint appeared to have no reasonable prospects of success because he did not appear to allege that harassment or bullying occurred because of, or for a reason related to, his sex. The Tribunal also stated that it had no standalone jurisdiction to hear bullying complaints that did not amount to sex discrimination.
Mr Wells provided no explanation within the seven-day period and did not reply to the respondent's strike-out application dated 3 June 2026. The Tribunal concluded that strike-out was in the interests of justice and consistent with the overriding objective, and struck out the sex discrimination complaint under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment expressly recorded that the rest of the claim was unaffected. No remedy was awarded or determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Only the sex discrimination complaint was struck out; the rest of the claim was not affected by this judgment. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38(1)(a): no reasonable prospects of success
- Rule 3: 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.