Case 1602137/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Greville v Gravells Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1602137/2019
- Decision date
- 29 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Greville
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented her original ET1 on 18 November 2019, pleading unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, notice pay and holiday pay. At that stage she had not resigned and remained employed on sick leave, so the claim was premature. She resigned on 14 January 2020 and that same day sought to continue with claims framed as constructive unfair dismissal, TUPE-related constructive unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and redundancy payment.
Applying the Selkent principles, the judge held that the proposed amendment was not a substantial one because it largely replicated complaints already set out in the original claim. The claimant had already said that her role changed after the April 2019 TUPE transfer from Garej Raymond Garage Limited to Gravells Ltd, that she had raised concerns informally and through grievance, and that she had asked the respondent for information about its position. The judge accepted that the amendment was made promptly after resignation and that any delay in the application being heard or in fuller particulars being provided was not the claimant's fault as a litigant in person. The respondent's time-limit argument was ultimately withdrawn.
The judge then refused the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications. Applying rule 37(1)(a) and rule 39, and citing Balls v Downham Market High School and College, Ukegheson v Haringey London Borough Council, Jansen van Rensberg v Royal London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames and the principle that a mini-trial should be avoided, the judge held that the claims were sufficiently arguable to proceed. The material issues were fact-sensitive and included the extent of any change in the claimant's duties after transfer, whether there had been a fundamental breach or material detriment, why she resigned, whether there had been affirmation, and whether the facts could support a redundancy situation. The amended claim was therefore allowed to proceed to a full hearing, with no substantive liability or remedy determination in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal under section 95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the amendment was granted and the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications were refused, but the substantive merits were not determined at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Constructive unfair dismissal under Regulation 4(9) of TUPE; the amendment was granted and the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications were refused, but the substantive merits were not determined at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The proposed contractual notice-pay / wrongful dismissal claim was allowed to proceed, but the tribunal did not determine liability or remedy at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | The redundancy payment claim was allowed to proceed, but the tribunal did not determine entitlement or remedy at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- rule 39 little reasonable prospect of success
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Ukegheson v Haringey London Borough Council
- Jansen van Rensberg v Royal London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames
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.