Case 1303341/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sherman Dubisson v Westbourne Leisure Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1303341/2021
- Decision date
- 14 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Steward Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sherman Dubisson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Steward on 14 April 2022. The issue for decision was whether Mr Sherman Dubisson should be permitted to amend his claim to include unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal. The hearing was held at Midlands (West) in hybrid form, with Mr Dubisson appearing in person and Westbourne Leisure Ltd represented by counsel.
The tribunal refused permission to amend. The judgment states that the decision was given for the reasons explained orally at the hearing. No merits finding was made on unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal, because those claims were not permitted to be added to the proceedings.
The case was left timetabled in accordance with the order of Employment Judge Battisby dated 29 November 2021. No financial award was made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At this preliminary hearing, the claimant sought permission to amend his claim to include unfair dismissal. The tribunal refused permission to amend, so the claim was not added and there was no merits determination. | Other | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | At this preliminary hearing, the claimant sought permission to amend his claim to include constructive dismissal. The tribunal refused permission to amend, so the claim was not added and there was no merits determination. | Other | — | — |
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.