Case 1600638/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Henry v Avanti Media Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600638/2022
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms M Walters, Mrs M Humphries
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Henry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe unanimous judgment of the tribunal, sitting in Cardiff on 13-17 March 2023 before Employment Judge C Sharp with Ms M Walters and Mrs M Humphries, dismissed Miss S Henry's claim of constructive unfair dismissal as not well-founded. The judgment also dismissed her automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A Employment Rights Act 1996 and her detriment claim under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996, both as not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states this automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states this detriment claim under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim for "notice pay"/unauthorised deduction from wages and dismisses it as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s47B Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.