Case 1403002/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Anne-Marie Jovcic-Sas v Bath College — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403002/2021
- Decision date
- 10 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Street
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Ms Kaye, Mr H Launder
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Anne-Marie Jovcic-Sas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was the reserved judgment in Anne-Marie Jovcic-Sas v Bath College, heard at Bristol on 30, 31 May, 1, 2 June and 19 June 2023 before Employment Judge Street with Ms Kaye and Mr H Launder. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal, and detriment on the grounds of protected disclosure were dismissed.
Because all claims were dismissed, the remedy hearing listed for 18 July 2023 was stated to be unnecessary and was removed from the list. The extracted judgment text does not set out the tribunal's detailed factual findings or legal reasoning, but it does confirm that written reasons were provided separately.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reserved judgment states that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this claim as automatically unfair dismissal and says it was dismissed; the extracted text does not separate any monetary award. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the detriment claim on the grounds of protected disclosure was dismissed. | 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.
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.