Case 1806168/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Murray v Hudson Administration Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806168/2020
- Decision date
- 22 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright Appearances
- Venue
- By Cloud Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Murray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 21 July 2021, Employment Judge Bright determined a preliminary admissibility issue arising from a conversation on 10 June 2020 between Miss L Murray and Mr John-Lee Thompson. The tribunal held that the conversation was a protected conversation within section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that there was nothing improper nor anything connected with improper behaviour in relation to what was said or done.
On that basis, the conversation was ruled wholly inadmissible in the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint under section 111 ERA 1996. The tribunal separately held that the conversation was not without prejudice because there was no existing dispute, so it was wholly admissible in the discrimination complaints, the part-time workers less favourable treatment complaint, and the victimisation complaint.
The tribunal also declined to exclude the evidence in the discrimination, part-time workers and victimisation complaints under the overriding objective in Rule 2 in order to avoid a split hearing. This decision did not determine the merits of any substantive claim and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary ruling only: the 10 June 2020 conversation was held to be a protected conversation under section 111A ERA 1996 and wholly inadmissible in the unfair dismissal complaint. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary ruling only: the conversation was held not to be without prejudice and was admissible in the discrimination complaints; the listing identifies disability discrimination among the claims. | Other | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary ruling only: the conversation was held not to be without prejudice and was admissible in the discrimination complaints; the listing identifies sex discrimination among the claims. | Other | Sex | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Preliminary ruling only: the conversation was held to be admissible in the part-time workers less favourable treatment complaint. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | Preliminary ruling only: the conversation was held to be admissible in the victimisation complaint. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 111A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- without prejudice
- Rule 2 overriding objective
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.