Case 1602679/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Thorney-Potter v William Hill Organization Limited Heard: by video — 2022
- Case reference
- 1602679/2020
- Decision date
- 31 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Thorney-Potter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written record for this hearing is limited to amendment issues. The tribunal held that the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim should be read so as to include a contention that her manager fraudulently misrepresented the respondent's furlough policy and failed to offer the claimant all the options the respondent had instructed her to provide. In the alternative, the tribunal permitted the claimant to amend her claim to include that contention as part of her constructive unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal refused the claimant's other applications to amend her claim. The judgment does not record any final determination of the merits of the constructive unfair dismissal claim or any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment concerns amendment of the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim, not the merits. The tribunal read the claim so as to include an allegation that the respondent's manager fraudulently misrepresented the furlough policy and failed to offer all the options the claimant had been instructed to provide, or alternatively allowed an amendment to include that contention. Other amendment applications were refused. | 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.