Case 2201081/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Hodge v National Westminster Bank plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201081/2020
- Decision date
- 23 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Hodge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for reconsideration of a reserved liability judgment on three grounds: alleged need for the Employment Judge to recuse herself, new evidence, and issues relating to Nadine Drew's witness evidence and an alleged incorrect calculation. The judge decided the application should proceed in part and that no hearing was necessary in the interests of justice.
The judgment varied the earlier judgment by adding findings that the tribunal had considered a late email chain from PC Blue about a 999 call. The tribunal accepted on the balance of probabilities that Ms Ademiyi had given incorrect information to the police, but noted that this allegation had not been put to her in cross-examination and that she had not had an opportunity to respond.
The judge rejected the recusal ground, stating that she had not had a relationship with the respondent requiring recusal or disclosure. The judge also rejected the grounds concerning Ms Drew's statement and the alleged calculation error, finding that the original judgment had already explained the cautious approach to Ms Drew's late statement and that the claimant had not identified how the calculation was incorrect.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This is a judgment on reconsideration of a reserved liability judgment. The reconsideration application succeeded only to the extent that additional findings of fact were added and the respondent's name was corrected; the text supplied does not state the outcomes of the underlying disability discrimination, race discrimination, or public interest disclosure claims. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 71 of the Tribunal Rules
- Rule 72(1) of the Tribunal Rules
- interests of justice
- balance of probabilities
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.