Case 1303470/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McGrath, Counsel For the v Mr M Cameron, Consultant — 2020
- Case reference
- 1303470/2018
- Decision date
- 17 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A McGrath, Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 17 September 2020 before Employment Judge Hughes, the tribunal dealt with amendment and evidence-management applications rather than the merits of the underlying dispute. The claimant's application to amend to add dismissal as a detriment claim, alongside an automatically unfair dismissal claim, was refused because she was an employee and could not pursue that claim under s47B(2) ERA 1996. Her unopposed request to clarify allegation 14 so that the date was 26 January 2018 was allowed.
The respondent's application to serve further witness statements was refused because three sets had already been served and the tribunal found the prejudice to the claimant outweighed the prejudice to the respondent. The respondent was allowed to amend the bundle index but did not have to repaginate it. The claimant was also permitted to play video evidence, subject to arranging a laptop so that the representatives, the tribunal and any relevant witnesses could view it at the appropriate point.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant's application to amend to add dismissal as a detriment claim in addition to an automatically unfair dismissal claim was refused because she was an employee, with s47B(2) ERA 1996 cited. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s47B(2) ERA 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.