Case 1801825/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A McNamara v Amvale Medical Transport Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801825/2019
- Decision date
- 16 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A McNamara
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment dealt only with two of the claimant's allegations. The tribunal struck out the allegations that the claimant was subject to sexual harassment when Malcolm Pearson commented that the claimant had a new neighbour, said to be his niece, and when control was rude to her during a telephone enquiry about shifts and work breaks.
The reason given was procedural: the claimant had failed to pay, within the time specified, the deposits ordered by the tribunal on 13 June 2019. The tribunal therefore struck out those allegations under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the claimant's other allegations and complaints in the case were unaffected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The claimant's allegation that she was subject to sexual harassment when Malcolm Pearson commented that the claimant had a new neighbour (his niece) was struck out under rule 39(4) because the claimant failed to pay the deposit ordered on 13 June 2019 within the time specified. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The claimant's allegation that she was subject to sexual harassment when control was rude to her when she enquired by telephone about shifts and work breaks was struck out under rule 39(4) because the claimant failed to pay the deposit ordered on 13 June 2019 within the time specified. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.