Case 2201153/2021 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201153/2021
- Decision date
- 20 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Tribunal
- Panel members
- B Leverton, R Miller
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the case was heard at London Central by Employment Judge P Klimov with tribunal members B Leverton and R Miller on 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 and 20 May 2022. The claimant, Miss Ricki Pryce, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms E. Skinner of counsel.
The written decision is brief and states that all of the claimant's complaints in the proceedings failed and were dismissed. No separate findings, legal analysis, or remedy assessment are set out in the written record provided.
The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard tribunal note. On the face of the written record, there is no monetary award and no successful claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The written judgment record does not identify the underlying complaint(s); it states only that all of the claimant's complaints failed and were dismissed. The GOV.UK listing for the case categorises it as Public Interest Disclosure, so this claim type is extracted on that basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.