Case 1301064/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Davies v Bull Products Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1301064/2019
- Decision date
- 8 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment by Employment Judge Reed sitting alone at Birmingham on 6 November 2019. The issue decided was the admissibility of evidence about meetings between the claimant and Mr Markham on 1 and 8 October 2019 in the context of the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal held that section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 rendered that evidence inadmissible in relation to the unfair dismissal claim. It also found that the meetings were not without prejudice. The written record notes that reasons were given orally and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The judgment does not determine the substantive unfair dismissal claim or record any remedy or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary ruling on admissibility of evidence said to relate to meetings between the claimant and Mr Markham on 1 and 8 October 2019; the tribunal held that section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 rendered that evidence inadmissible in relation to the unfair dismissal claim, and that the meetings were not without prejudice. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.111A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.