Case 1809013/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Jones v Simpson Millar LLP HELD at Leeds by CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 1809013/2023
- Decision date
- 29 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered whether documents at pages 49 to 85 of the hearing bundle, concerning communications between the claimant and the respondent about the claimant's future employment and possible agreed terms, should be admitted in the unfair dismissal proceedings. It found that documents 49 to 74 and 77 to 85 formed part of a negotiating process aimed at resolving a dispute between the parties without litigation.
The Tribunal held that those documents were privileged under the without prejudice rule and inadmissible. It separately considered section 111A Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that the negotiations were pre-termination negotiations, that section 111A applied, and that there was no improper conduct by the respondent preventing inadmissibility.
Documents 75 and 76 were treated differently: the Tribunal found they were not privileged because they concerned the respondent's strategic decision about the claimant's attendance at senior management team meetings and the claimant's response to that issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records an unfair dismissal claim but determines only whether specified documents are privileged and inadmissible; it does not determine the merits or remedy of the unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- without prejudice rule
- section 111A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Hawkes v Brewin Dolphin Securities Limited
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.