Case 1406626/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss L J Dowding v John Titcombe Limited — 2022

Case reference: 1406626/2020
Decision date: 18 October 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Halliday Representation
Venue: Bristol

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss L J Dowding

Respondent

John Titcombe Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Halliday, heard by video on 29 September 2022. The tribunal considered the claimant's application to amend the originating application so as to add harassment allegations in the amended Grounds of Claim.

The application was granted for the allegations set out in paragraphs 15(a), 15(b), 15(c), 15(e), 15(f), 15(g), 15(h), 15(j) and 15(k). It was refused for the allegations in paragraphs 15(d) and 15(i). The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.

This record does not contain any liability finding on the substantive claims and does not record any remedy award.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This 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
Harassment	The claimant's application to amend the originating application to include a harassment claim on the grounds set out in paragraphs 15(a), 15(b), 15(c), 15(e), 15(f), 15(g), 15(h), 15(j) and 15(k) of the amended Grounds of Claim was granted. The short written record does not specify the protected characteristic.	Upheld	—	—
Harassment	The claimant's application to amend the originating application to include a harassment claim on the grounds set out in paragraphs 15(d) and 15(i) of the amended Grounds of Claim was refused. The short written record does not specify the protected characteristic.	Dismissed	—	—

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.

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.