Case 1804910/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Masterson v Coe & Co Fine Jewellery Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804910/2022
- Decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Masterson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Bright on 16 January 2023, the tribunal dealt with a complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that this complaint was struck out.
The tribunal also granted leave to amend the claim so that it could include a complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, which concerns protected disclosure. The reasons for the Judgment and Order were given orally at the preliminary hearing, and no written reasons were to be provided unless requested within 14 days.
No monetary award was made in this judgment, and no substantive findings were recorded on any section 103A complaint beyond the permission to amend.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996 (health and safety cases). The same judgment granted leave to amend the claim to include a complaint under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, but it did not decide that proposed amended claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.