Case 1802467/2024 · Employment Tribunal
1. PQ 2. Mrs Samantha Tempest v Environment Agency and 3 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1802467/2024
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
5 namedClaimant
1. PQ 2. Mrs Samantha Tempest
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered allegations in specified paragraphs concerning the actions of Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley. The tribunal recorded that she was not an employee of the first respondent and that it was not suggested she was an agent of the first respondent.
The tribunal held that the claimants' submission that liability could attach to the first respondent because it condoned and ceased to prohibit the conduct was covered by other allegations that remained. The tribunal found that the attempt to fix liability to the first respondent otherwise fell foul of Unite the Union v Nailard and concluded that, taking the claim at its highest, the specified allegations could not succeed. Those paragraphs were struck out under rule 38.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The preliminary hearing judgment struck out specified paragraphs of the claims concerning the actions of Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley. The extracted judgment does not identify the legal cause of action or protected characteristic for those paragraphs. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Unite the Union v Nailard [2019] ICR 28
- rule 38
- no reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.