Case 1302130/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr S Proffitt - Counsel — 2021
- Case reference
- 1302130/2019
- Decision date
- 8 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Signed
- Panel members
- Mrs R Pelter, Mr G Murray
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Hall brought claims against Scope UK (A Charity) in the Employment Tribunal sitting at Birmingham on 6, 7 and 8 April 2021 before Employment Judge Self, with Mrs R Pelter and Mr G Murray as lay members. The claimant was in person and the respondent was represented by counsel, Mr S Proffitt.
The judgment records that the claimant was not constructively dismissed. It also states that all unfair dismissal claims and the wrongful dismissal claim were dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the extracted text.
The tribunal further held that the claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996, described as a whistleblowing detriment claim, was not well-founded and was dismissed. The extracted judgment does not set out detailed reasoning beyond these outcomes.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was not constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment says that all unfair dismissal claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 for whistleblowing detriment was found not well-founded and 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.