Case 1305877/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Carvalho v Swissport GB Limited and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 1305877/2019
- Decision date
- 30 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss S Carvalho
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing concerning whether Birmingham Airport Limited could be added to the claimant's first claim and whether the claimant's second claim could proceed against that company. The tribunal refused permission to amend the first claim to add Birmingham Airport Limited as a party.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's second claim insofar as it related to Birmingham Airport Limited, on the basis that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The judgment expressly stated that the claimant's claims against Swissport GB Limited in both the first and second claims were unaffected by this decision.
The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided on request. No substantive findings were made in this judgment on the underlying employment claims against the first respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the first claim to add Birmingham Airport Limited as a respondent, and dismissed the second claim insofar as it was brought against Birmingham Airport Limited for want of jurisdiction. The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive cause or causes of action against the second respondent. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.