Case 1801008/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ball v Barnsley Hosptial NHS Foundation Trust PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard: BY TELEPHONE (BT MEET ME) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801008/2020
- Decision date
- 8 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ball
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing by telephone, heard on 5 June 2020 before Employment Judge JM Wade. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms Tayub, solicitor. The parties consented to the remote hearing and raised no objections.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, founded on allegations of harassment, was dismissed on withdrawal. No merits finding was made on that complaint in this judgment because it did not proceed beyond withdrawal.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant's 'other payments' complaint would proceed as a claim for damages arising from alleged breach of contract. This judgment did not determine the merits of that claim or record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, founded on allegations of harassment, was dismissed on its withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's 'other payments' complaint was held to proceed as a claim for damages arising from alleged breach of contract. The judgment does not record any substantive determination of that claim. | 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.