Case 6040292/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Marion Muhonen Nilsen v John Lewis Partnership plc — 2026
- Case reference
- 6040292/2025
- Decision date
- 27 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Marion Muhonen Nilsen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied to strike out the respondent's response, arguing that the response failed to address numerous particulars from her claim and was either an abuse of process or showed that the respondent had no valid defence.
The tribunal refused the application. It found that the alleged defects did not bear real scrutiny, that many points were requests for evidence, and that not every factual point needed to be addressed in the response. The tribunal stated that the Grounds of Resistance set out a clear and comprehensible account of the respondent's position and that there was no basis to strike out the response.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant brings an unfair dismissal claim, but this Rule 38 decision only refused the claimant's application to strike out the response and did not determine the substantive claim. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records a sex discrimination claim, but this Rule 38 decision only refused the claimant's application to strike out the response and did not determine the substantive claim. | Other | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records a disability discrimination claim based on multiple sclerosis, but this Rule 38 decision only refused the claimant's application to strike out the response and did not determine the substantive claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.