Case 1802159/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Miss Jaydene Whitfield v Mrs Caroline Roe and 1 other — 2019

Case reference: 1802159/2019
Decision date: 13 May 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Miss Jaydene Whitfield

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary judgment before Employment Judge Brain at Sheffield on 29 August 2019. The tribunal recorded that it was in the interests of justice to join Harliboo Limited as second respondent, dispensed with service of the claimant's claim form dated 13 May 2019 on that company, and treated the notice of appearance already presented on behalf of Mrs Caroline Roe as presented on behalf of Harliboo Limited as well.

The text supplied contains no determination of the underlying employment claims, no findings on liability, and no remedy assessment. It is therefore not possible from this judgment alone to extract substantive outcomes for redundancy, sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, or working time allegations.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal joined Harliboo Limited as second respondent, dispensed with service of the claim form on it, and deemed the first respondent's notice of appearance to be presented on behalf of the second respondent. No substantive claim, liability finding, or remedy was determined in the text provided.	Other	—	—

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.