Case 1303417/2017 · Employment Tribunal

In Person For the v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 1303417/2017
Decision date: 28 June 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Woffenden Appearances
Venue: Birmingham

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In Person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Woffenden in Birmingham on 22 March 2019, with reasons sent on 25 March 2019. The respondent applied for a ruling that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's sex discrimination complaint and his complaint of detriment under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal refused that application, and any time bar issues were left to be determined at the final hearing.

The respondent also applied for the claim to be struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders. That application was refused. The judgment therefore records no substantive determination of liability on either complaint and no award of compensation. A further preliminary hearing was listed for 28 June 2019 for case management.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	At this preliminary hearing the respondent's application that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's sex discrimination complaint was refused. Any time bar issue was left to the final hearing; no merits finding was made.	Other	Sex	—
Whistleblowing	At this preliminary hearing the respondent's application that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's detriment complaint under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 was refused. No merits finding was made and any time bar issue was left to the final hearing.	Other	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.