Case 1307451/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Norman v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 1307451/2019
- Decision date
- 21 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Norman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was a jurisdictional ruling rather than a merits decision. Employment Judge Cookson held that the claimant’s unlawful race, sex and age discrimination claims, the less favourable treatment claim under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, the unspecified Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 detriment claim, and the unpaid holiday pay claim were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The reason given was that those claims had previously been dismissed by Employment Judge Lloyd on 21 September 2019, or alternatively that they were an abuse of process under the rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim had previously been dismissed by Employment Judge Lloyd on 21 September 2019 or amounted to an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim had previously been dismissed by Employment Judge Lloyd on 21 September 2019 or amounted to an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim had previously been dismissed by Employment Judge Lloyd on 21 September 2019 or amounted to an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim had previously been dismissed by Employment Judge Lloyd on 21 September 2019 or amounted to an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | The judgment refers to an unspecified detriment claim relating to trade union activities under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it had previously been dismissed or was an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
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.