Case 1600992/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Hughes v Rascals Cafe and Bar Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600992/2023
- Decision date
- 3 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cardiff ET
- Panel members
- Ms R Hartwell, Mr A Fryer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Cardiff by videolink on 25, 26 and 27 March 2024, heard claims by Ms L Hughes against Rascals Cafe and Bar Limited. The tribunal's written judgment records that Ms Hughes was not constructively unfairly dismissed, and that her claim for constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed.
The tribunal also found that Ms Hughes resigned without notice. On that basis, it held that no notice pay was due and owing to her, and dismissed the notice pay claim. In relation to the whistleblowing allegations, the tribunal found that she was not subjected to detriments for having made a protected disclosure and was not automatically unfairly dismissed for having made a protected disclosure, so both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal; tribunal found the claimant was not constructively unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant resigned without notice and no notice pay was due. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriments for having made a protected disclosure was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for automatic unfair dismissal for having made a protected disclosure was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.