Case 1600583/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Smith v The Isle of Anglesey County Council PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600583/2014
- Decision date
- 10 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Powell Dated
- Venue
- Llandudno
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing at Llandudno on 4 February 2020 before Employment Judge R F Powell, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Ms Owusa-Aghei of counsel. The issue determined was the claimant’s applications to amend his existing claim.
The tribunal refused the applications to amend the claim to include unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, detriments on the grounds of a public interest disclosure, and unlawful deductions from wages. The judgment records no findings on the merits of those proposed claims and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Application to amend the claim to include unfair dismissal was refused at the preliminary hearing; no merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Application to amend the claim to include disability discrimination was refused at the preliminary hearing; no merits determination was made. | Other | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Application to amend the claim to include detriments on the grounds of a public interest disclosure was refused at the preliminary hearing; no merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Application to amend the claim to include unlawful deductions from wages was refused at the preliminary hearing; no merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
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.