Case 1401969/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ross Terrebonne v NM Telecom Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401969/2018
- Decision date
- 24 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ross Terrebonne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 24 June 2019, Employment Judge Housego considered whether NM Telecom Ltd had complied with an unless order made by Employment Judge Roper on 26 April 2019. The order required the respondent to confirm whether it continued to dispute that Nidhi Mohan was an employee or agent for the claimant's public interest disclosure and race discrimination claims and, if it did, to provide Samsung login records for the period 1 November 2017 to 31 March 2018. The respondent did not provide the required records by the deadline.
After hearing from Madan Mohan through a Hindi interpreter, the tribunal found that the explanations given for not producing the records shifted during the hearing and were inconsistent. The judge concluded that the respondent was seeking to evade the issue. On the evidence given, the tribunal found that Nidhi Mohan was fully involved in the running of the respondent's Plymouth shop where the claimant worked, and that the denial of her involvement was an attempt to rely on a technical point to avoid the claim.
Because the unless order was not complied with, and the judge treated the non-compliance as deliberate, the respondent's response was struck out and judgment was entered for the claimant in respect of all his claims as set out in the case management order of 7 January 2019. The case was relisted for a remedy hearing, so no monetary award was made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Judgment entered for the claimant after the respondent's response was struck out for non-compliance with an unless order; no separate remedy was determined in this decision. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Judgment entered for the claimant after the respondent failed to comply with the unless order concerning the public interest disclosure issues; no separate remedy was determined in this decision. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Judgment entered for the claimant after the respondent failed to comply with the unless order concerning the race discrimination claim; no separate remedy was determined in this decision. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that judgment was entered for the claimant in respect of all his claims; remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.