Case 1804556/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Parkinson v DN Colleges Group — 2019
- Case reference
- 1804556/2019
- Decision date
- 24 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Parkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 4 October 2019 before Employment Judge Brain, the tribunal dealt with the claimant's complaints of automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure and detriment in employment on the same grounds. The respondent applied for strike out of those claims, or parts of them, alternatively for a deposit order as a condition of continuing with them.
The tribunal refused the respondent's application. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the extracted text does not record any detailed merits findings or a substantive conclusion on the protected disclosure complaints themselves.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal complaint or require a deposit; the merits of the claim were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's detriment complaint based on protected disclosure grounds or require a deposit; the merits of the claim were not determined in this judgment. | 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.