Case 1800221/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Miss Rumble, of Counsel v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 1800221/2019
Decision date: 4 September 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Brain Representation
Venue: Sheffield

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Miss Rumble, of Counsel

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing in Sheffield on 27 August 2019 before Employment Judge Brain, the tribunal allowed the claimant to amend his claim. The amendment added a complaint of constructive dismissal under section 39(2)(c) of the Equality Act 2010, said to arise from the respondent's failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal also allowed an amendment adding a victimisation complaint under section 39(4) of the Equality Act 2010. The alleged detriment was identified by reference to paragraph (12) of the record of the preliminary hearing dated 28 May 2019, and the protected act was the claimant's grievance dated 29 November 2018 raising an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments.

This judgment is confined to permission to amend and does not decide the substantive merits of either complaint. No remedy was assessed or awarded in this decision.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The tribunal permitted an amendment to add this complaint at a preliminary hearing; the judgment did not determine the substantive merits.	Other	Disability	—
Victimisation	The tribunal permitted an amendment to add this complaint at a preliminary hearing; the judgment did not determine the substantive merits.	Other	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.