Case 2204154/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Mr Paul Brill, in house solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204154/2021
- Decision date
- 13 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing on 4 October 2021 concerned Ms Messi's application for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Claimant did not attend. Employment Judge E Burns refused a further postponement request, considered the history of earlier postponements, and decided the hearing should proceed in her absence. The Judge stated that this was an interim relief hearing, not a full merits hearing, and that no findings of fact were being made.
The Tribunal applied the section 129(1)(a) test and asked whether it appeared likely that, on final determination, the Claimant would show that the reason for dismissal was that she made a protected disclosure. The documents before the Tribunal included the Respondent's contract with HGS, the Claimant's Terms of Engagement identifying her as an agency worker, and an email from HGS on 30 June 2021 asking for her to be separated with immediate effect because of silent calls and an abusive-language incident. The Judge also relied on the transcript of the call with Nicola Burgin, which reflected that explanation.
The Tribunal found that the documentation supported the Respondent's case that the Claimant was an agency worker on a temporary assignment with HGS, and that what ended on 30 June 2021 was the assignment rather than the overall relationship. The Claimant had not produced copies of the alleged protected disclosures said to have been made on 29 June 2021. The Judge accepted that an email sent to the ICO on 27 June 2021 could potentially amount to a protected disclosure, but noted that it was forwarded to HGS and the Respondent only after the assignment had already been terminated. On that material, the application for interim relief was rejected.
The Respondent was awarded costs of £2,000. The Judge found the Claimant had pursued the application unreasonably knowing it had no reasonable prospects of success, and decided not to enquire into means because the hearing proceeded in the Claimant's absence.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996 was rejected. The tribunal did not finally determine the underlying automatic unfair dismissal / protected disclosure claim. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 128 ERA 1996
- section 129(1)(a) ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Simply Smile Manor House Ltd v Ter-Berg
- Uber BV v Aslam
- Rule 76
- Rule 84
- section 43A-43H ERA 1996
- section 230 ERA 1996
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
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.