London Borough of Hounslow

Case Nos: 2305083/2024 2305299/2024 2305300/2024 2305933/2024 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr S Radu Respondent: London Borough of Hounslow Heard at: Croydon (via CVP) On: 1 October 2025 Before: Employment Judge Leith Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr Lester (Counsel) JUDGMENT 1. The complaints of automatically unfair dismissal are struck out. 2. Allegations c, d and e of the complaint of protected disclosure detriment are struck out. 3. The Respondent’s application to strike out the remaining complaints of protected disclosure detriment, and the complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal, fails and is dismissed. 4. The Respondent’s application for a deposit order fails and is dismissed. REASONS 1. This hearing was listed to consider the Respondent’s applications to strike out the Claimant’s claims, or alternatively to enter a deposit order or orders in respect of them. Law 2. Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 deals with striking out claims. It provides as follows: “38.—(1) The Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the application of a party, strike out all or part of a claim, response or reply on any of the following grounds— Case Nos: 2305083/2024 2305299/2024 2305300/2024 2305933/2024 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 (a) that it is scandalous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospect of success; (b) that the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant or the respondent (as the case may be) has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious; (c) for non-compliance with any of these Rules or with an order of the Tribunal; (d) that it has not been actively pursued; (e) that the Tribunal considers that it is no longer possible to have a fair hearing in respect of the claim, response or reply (or the p...