Case 1310874/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1310874/2020
- Decision date
- 20 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing held remotely by CVP on 20 October 2021 before Employment Judge Dimbylow. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The hearing was concerned with case management applications rather than the substantive merits of any claim.
The claimant applied to amend the claim to include sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, and constructive unfair dismissal. That application was refused and dismissed. The respondent's application to strike out the claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success was also refused and dismissed, as was the respondent's application for a deposit order on the basis that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records no liability findings and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Application to amend to include a sex discrimination claim was refused and dismissed at an open preliminary hearing; no merits determination was made on the underlying claim. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Application to amend to include an unfair dismissal claim was refused and dismissed at an open preliminary hearing; no merits determination was made on the underlying claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Application to amend to include a constructive unfair dismissal claim was refused and dismissed at an open preliminary hearing; no merits determination was made on the underlying claim. | 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.
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.