Case 1306085/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306085/2018
- Decision date
- 6 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly Appearances
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims. It held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim relating to the October 2018 dismissal because the claimant had been reinstated by the respondent. On the tribunal's reasoning, that reinstatement revived the contract and negated the dismissal, and the tribunal cited Roberts v West Coast Trains Limited 2005 ICR 254.
The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's intended claims for bullying and mistreatment, personal injury and negligence. The claimant's application to amend her claim to add a constructive unfair dismissal claim arising from her resignation in July 2019 was rejected for reasons given orally. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant had been reinstated by the respondent; the tribunal held that reinstatement revived the contract and negated the dismissal, citing Roberts v West Coast Trains Limited 2005 ICR 254. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's intended claims for bullying and mistreatment, personal injury and negligence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Roberts v West Coast Trains Limited 2005 ICR 254
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.