Case 1803335/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Rusby v Helping Hand Domiciliary Care Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803335/2021
- Decision date
- 21 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Rusby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment on a preliminary point about privilege, not the substantive employment claims. The claimant said she found emails on a tablet computer provided by the respondent for training modules, opened them, and printed them. The tribunal found that pages 4-15, together with the telephone note at page 43 and the email note at page 16, were communications or drafts relating to advice about the claimant and the management of issues at work.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Reserved judgment on a preliminary privilege point. The respondent’s objection succeeded: the tribunal held that the documents on pages 4-16 and 42-43 were protected by legal advice privilege and/or litigation privilege and should not be put before the tribunal at any final hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Balabel and anor v Air India
- Civil Aviation Authority v Jet2.com Ltd
- Prudential plc v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
- Howes v Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
- In re L (a minor)
- Barclays Bank plc v Eustice
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.