Case 2203346/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Harris (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 2203346/2019
Decision date: 30 October 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge E Burns Representation
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr M Harris (counsel) For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant applied for interim relief under section 161 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The hearing was before Employment Judge E Burns at London Central on 30 October 2019, with Mr M Harris appearing for the claimant and Ms S Robertson for the respondents.

The tribunal held that the interim relief application failed. Its reason was that it did not appear likely that the tribunal finally determining the claim would find that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed by virtue of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment records no monetary award and does not determine the substantive unfair dismissal claim on the merits.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	Application for interim relief under s.161 TULR(C)A 1992 failed because the tribunal did not think it likely that the final tribunal would find the claimant had been unfairly dismissed by virtue of s.152 TULR(C)A 1992.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.