Case 1404473/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Manpreet Kaur v TSB Bank plc — 2023

Case reference: 1404473/2020
Decision date: 7 February 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge G. King Representation
Venue: Bristol ET via VHS

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Manpreet Kaur

Respondent

TSB Bank plc

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

On reconsideration under Rule 71, following Pryce v Baxterstorey Limited [2022 EAT 61], the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because there had been no EC certificate on issue. It said that this could not be cured by an after-the-event certificate. The tribunal also held that the email enclosing the certificate could not be treated as a re-presentation, because Rule 8(1) required a completed ET1 to be sent to institute a claim and that provision could not be waived without undermining section 18A(8) ETA.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal stated in the alternative that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed by way of withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The judgment referred to the claimant's discrimination claims in the plural but did not identify each allegation separately in the extracted text. This entry reflects the pregnancy and maternity discrimination category indicated by the case listing.	Dismissed	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Sex discrimination	The judgment referred to the claimant's discrimination claims in the plural but did not identify each allegation separately in the extracted text. This entry reflects the sex discrimination category indicated by the case listing.	Dismissed	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.