Case 1402120/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Jacqueline Puddifoot v Millstream Management Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402120/2021
- Decision date
- 23 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Jacqueline Puddifoot
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal extended time in respect of all of the Claimant's disability discrimination claims because it considered it just and equitable to do so. No substantive findings on the merits of those discrimination claims were made in this decision; the tribunal dealt only with procedural disposal and case management.
The Claimant's section 44 ERA 1996 detriment claims based on being required to return to the office, alleged false accusations of a complaint on 25 September 2020, and alleged non-payment for work undertaken at home on 5 and 12 August 2020 were struck out. The tribunal held that those claims were filed out of time, no extension of time was granted, and it had no jurisdiction to hear them.
The Claimant's remaining section 44 detriment claim, concerning the Respondent not following the same leaving procedure for her, was dismissed on withdrawal. Her automatic unfair constructive dismissal claim under section 100 ERA 1996 was also dismissed on withdrawal. The disability discrimination claims for discrimination arising from disability and harassment, both relating to the 26 February 2021 incident about colleagues being told she was leaving and the usual goodbye procedure, were withdrawn as well. The remaining claims were listed to proceed to final hearing on 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Unlawful detriment claim under section 44(1)(c), (d) and/or (e) ERA 1996 based on requiring the Claimant to return to the office, levelled false accusations of a complaint on 25 September 2020, and failure to pay for work undertaken at home on 5 and 12 August 2020; struck out as out of time, with no extension of time granted and no jurisdiction to hear the claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Unlawful detriment claim under section 44(1)(c), (d) and/or (e) ERA 1996 alleging that the Respondent did not follow the same leaving procedure for the Claimant; dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Automatic unfair constructive dismissal claim contrary to section 100 ERA 1996; dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Disability discrimination claim for discrimination arising from disability, arising from the allegation that on 26 February 2021 the Claimant's line manager did not tell colleagues that she was leaving or arrange the usual cardboard tubes procedure for saying goodbye; dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability harassment claim arising from the same 26 February 2021 allegation concerning the line manager not telling colleagues that the Claimant was leaving or arranging the usual cardboard tubes goodbye procedure; dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable to do so
- section 44(1)(c), (d) and/or (e) ERA 1996
- section 100 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.