Case 1403823/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Whitbread Group plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403823/2021
- Decision date
- 16 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on reconsideration of a decision rejecting the claim. The tribunal recorded that, on 30 September 2021, claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, arrears of pay, holiday pay and breach of contract had been accepted, with further information directed in relation to age discrimination.
The claimant did not respond to tribunal correspondence by the stated deadlines, and the file was closed under an unless order. After being told on 18 January 2022 that the claim had been rejected, the claimant wrote on 2 March 2022 saying she had not received the tribunal's correspondence.
The tribunal held that the application for reconsideration was within the relevant time limit and that the earlier accepted claims had complied with the rules for presentation. It extended time, revoked the decision rejecting the claim, accepted the stated claims, and granted an extension for the claimant to provide the age discrimination information, which had since been provided.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reconsideration judgment revoked the rejection of the claim and stated this claim was accepted; it did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The reconsideration judgment revoked the rejection of the claim and stated this claim was accepted; it did not determine the merits. | Other | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to arrears of pay being accepted; it did not determine the merits or award a sum. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The reconsideration judgment revoked the rejection of the claim and stated this claim was accepted; it did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The reconsideration judgment revoked the rejection of the claim and stated this claim was accepted; it did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Age discrimination is mentioned as a claim for which further information had been requested; the judgment records an extension of time and that information had since been provided, but does not expressly determine the merits. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 10
- Rule 13
- Rule 13(1)
- Rule 13(2)
- Rule 5
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.