Case 1307666/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S White, also present Mr A Platts, Mr D McSwiggin, Mr P Montrose and Mr G O’Connor For the First v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1307666/2024
- Decision date
- 6 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms S White, also present Mr A Platts, Mr D McSwiggin, Mr P Montrose and Mr G O’Connor For the First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 3 February 2025 before Employment Judge Hughes, the tribunal dealt only with preliminary procedural matters. It held that the Employment Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear a claim for breach of the Construction, Design and Management Regulations 2015, and the claim was dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal also recorded that case reference number 1307667/2024 was a duplicate claim and was dismissed on withdrawal. The written record notes that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear a claim for breach of the Construction, Design and Management Regulations 2015 and dismissed it on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Case reference number 1307667/2024 was identified as a duplicate claim and was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.