Case 1805182/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Annette Edwards v GS Associates (Scotland) Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805182/2022
- Decision date
- 16 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Annette Edwards
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the first respondent as a cleaner from 11 July to 19 August 2022, working at a Marks & Spencer store under a cleaning services contract between the respondents. She resigned after raising health and safety concerns and later brought claims described as wrongful dismissal, health and safety, and whistleblowing or protected disclosure matters.
At the preliminary hearing, the claimant confirmed that the missing final wages had been paid in two instalments totalling £275.50 and that no further pay was due. The tribunal explained that it could not award compensation for upset in a notice pay claim, and that the claim appeared to be for breach of contract rather than wages.
The tribunal discussed the possible whistleblowing and health and safety issues. It recorded that the claimant was not alleging detrimental treatment because of raising health and safety concerns, and that although the matters she described might in other circumstances raise issues such as constructive unfair dismissal or automatically unfair dismissal linked to health and safety or whistleblowing, those claims did not arise on the facts as clarified. The claimant confirmed she was not bringing a discrimination claim.
The claimant withdrew the claims against the first respondent, which were dismissed on withdrawal. The claims against the second respondent were struck out because the second respondent was not the claimant's employer and, in the circumstances, the claims against it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes the remaining notice pay issue as appearing to be a breach of contract claim. The claimant accepted all pay due had been paid and withdrew the claims against the first respondent; they were dismissed on withdrawal under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant had ticked the whistleblowing box, but at the preliminary hearing it was clarified that she was not alleging detrimental treatment as a result of raising health and safety concerns. Any claims against the first respondent were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Any claims against the second respondent were struck out because it was not the claimant's employer and the tribunal found the claims against it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 52 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
- sections 100 and 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.