Case 1401299/2018 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401299/2018
- Decision date
- 23 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
- Panel members
- Mr J Ruddick, Mr D A Stewart
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Southampton before Employment Judge Gray with members Mr J Ruddick and Mr D A Stewart, unanimously dismissed all complaints brought by Ms H Smith against IBM United Kingdom Limited. The judgment records that the complaint of unfair dismissal, pleaded as constructive dismissal, failed and was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal complaint brought under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the detriment complaint brought under section 47B of the same Act. The written record does not set out substantive reasons because the tribunal notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no separate remedy figures are given for any claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
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.