Three Employment Claims Struck Out by Tribunal
📌 In brief
Three employment claims were dismissed by an Employment Tribunal because they lacked merit and failed to follow procedural rules. The claimants did not attend the hearing.
⚖️ Legal holding
Claims are dismissed if they have no reasonable chance of success and do not comply with procedural rules.
📖 Technical summary
The claims were struck out due to lack of reasonable prospects and non-compliance with ET Rules.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Judge struck out three employment claims brought against Genting Casinos UK Limited, ruling that the claims had no reasonable prospects of success and did not comply with the ET Rules.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case Nos: 1303045/2025, 1303046/2025 and 1303047/2025
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants:
[redacted]
[NAME]
[NAME] [RESPONDENT]
Respondent: [redacted]
Birmingham by CVP video hearing
On:
5 May 2026
Before:
Employment Judge Flood
Representation Claimants:
[redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
1. The claims listed above are struck out rule 38(1) (a) and (c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 (‘ET Rules’) because:
(a) the claims have no reasonable prospects of success; and (b) the claimants have not complied with the ET Rules or a Tribunal order.
None of the claimants listed above can rely on the exemption under the
Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of
Procedure) Regulations 2014 (the ‘EC Rules’) because their claims do not
arise out of the ‘same dispute’. Their claims do not give rise to common or
related issues of fact or law and it was not otherwise reasonable for their
claims to be made on the same claim form under rule 11 of the ET Rules.
Therefore the claims are struck out.
Employment Judge Flood
Approved on 05 May 2026
Case Nos: 1303045/2025, 1303046/2025 and 1303047/2025
2
Note Notes: Reasons for the judgment having been given in full orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.
Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment- tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.
Recording and Transcription
Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice- directions/
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects All Claimant's Complaints Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Unfair Dismissal and Breach of Contract Claims
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects All Discrimination Claims Against DVLA
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Employment Claims Dismissed by Employment Judge Lancaster
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Unauthorised Wage Deductions Invalid
- Employment Tribunal Worker Wins Damages for Wage Deductions and Holiday Pay at Employment Tribu…
- Employment Tribunal Unauthorised Wage Deductions and Holiday Pay: Claimant Wins in Employment T…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Ordered to Pay Compensation for Unauthorised Wage Deductions and B…
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- {"An employer's claims are dismissed if there is insufficient evidence supporting the allegations": ["An employer is not required to make reasonable adjustments or avoid discriminatory practices if the claimant's allegations are not substantiated by evidence."], "An employer's claims are dismissed when they do not comply with procedural rules or have no reasonable chance of success.": ['An employer must provide a written statement of employment particulars to an employee, failing which the employer is liable for compensation under section 38 Em'], 'Claims involving unauthorised wage reductions or breaches of employment contract regarding notice periods may still be dismissed if procedural rules are not followed or success is unlikely': ['An employer must compensate an employee for unauthorised wage reductions, breaches of employment contract regarding notice periods, wrongful dismissal by redund']}
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal struck out three employment claims.
Who was involved?
Three claimants against an employer, Genting Casinos UK Limited.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court ruled that the claims had no reasonable prospects of success and were not compliant with procedural rules.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 (ET Rules).
What was the argument that mattered most?
The lack of compliance with ET Rules and no reasonable prospects for success.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against the claimants.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Claims must have merit and comply with procedural rules to avoid being struck out.
What evidence or documents mattered?
None specified, as the decision was based on procedural grounds.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but it may depend on the specific circumstances of the case.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor.