Case 1401263/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nigel Lofthouse v St Cross Kitchens of Winchester Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401263/2022
- Decision date
- 29 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Street Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Nigel Lofthouse
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment following a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Street (sitting alone) at Bristol by CVP on 10 July 2024. The Claimant, a former director of the Respondent company (a kitchen design and manufacture business of which he was one of four directors), brought claims of unfair dismissal, holiday pay, arrears of pay and failure to provide a written statement of particulars, and applied to amend his claim to add whistleblowing / protected disclosure claims. The preliminary issues were whether he was an employee or worker within s.230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether to permit the amendment.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent from March 2019 to a date of termination yet to be determined. The Tribunal also recorded that the Respondent's witness statements had been served in substantial breach of an earlier case management order limiting them to 3000 words; the Judge was satisfied a fair hearing remained possible and took care not to rely on the withdrawn longer statements.
The Tribunal refused permission to amend the claim to add the whistleblowing allegations. The Judge found that the proposed amendments amounted in practice to substantial new claims, largely unconnected with the original pleaded case, that would require significant additional disclosure and a substantially longer hearing. The explanation for the delay of approximately 21 months in articulating the allegations was described as flimsy, and the balance of hardship was held to operate in the Respondent's favour. The substantive claims of unfair dismissal, holiday pay, arrears of pay and written particulars were not adjudicated at this hearing and were listed for further case management on 5 September 2024.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The Tribunal found the Claimant was an employee from March 2019 to a termination date yet to be determined; the substantive unfair dismissal claim was not adjudicated at this hearing and remains to be determined. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Pleaded claim; not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay pleaded; not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment (s.1 ERA 1996); pleaded but not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Amendment application of 9 February 2024 to add protected disclosure / whistleblowing claims was refused. The Tribunal held the balance of hardship favoured the Respondent and the explanation for delay was insufficient. The whistleblowing claim itself was therefore not adjudicated on its merits. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- balance of hardship
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.