Case 1301470/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Jones v Propertymark Ltd and 4 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1301470/2018
- Decision date
- 19 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Ms Fox, Ms Shenton
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Miss C Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Jones brought Public Interest Disclosure and unfair dismissal claims against Propertymark Ltd and four individual respondents. The tribunal sat at Birmingham before Employment Judge Cookson with Ms Fox and Ms Shenton. At the end of the hearing, the claims against the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents were dismissed upon withdrawal.
On the whistleblowing detriment claims under s47B ERA 1996 against the First Respondent, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought claims relating to alleged detriments before 6 November 2017 within the statutory time limit. Those claims were therefore not submitted in time and the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider them.
The remaining s47B detriment claims, said to have occurred on or after 6 November 2017, were not upheld and were dismissed. The claimant's unfair dismissal claims under s103A ERA 1996 and s94(1) ERA 1996 were also not upheld and were dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claims against the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to bring the s47B claims relating to alleged detriments before 6 November 2017 within time, so those claims were out of time and outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The s47B claims against the First Respondent alleging detriments on or after 6 November 2017 were not upheld and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim of unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996 was not upheld and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim of unfair dismissal under s94(1) ERA 1996 was not upheld and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.