Case 2204586/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Rudd And v Great Bowery (UK) Limited Representatives — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204586/2020
- Decision date
- 16 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Rudd And
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing by CVP before Employment Judge Nicolle on 8 February 2021, the tribunal dealt with preliminary applications in case nos. 2204586/2020 and 2206759/2020. The claim for detriments on grounds of making alleged protected disclosures was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal recorded that, although the strike-out application was confined to the detriments claim and not the dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996, the parties agreed that the same reasoning meant the dismissal claim could not be pursued. The claim that dismissal was automatically unfair under s.103A was therefore dismissed.
The direct sex discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 and the harassment claim under s.26 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed on withdrawal. For avoidance of doubt, the tribunal stated that the claims for constructive unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (breach of contract), indirect sex discrimination, and victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010 were to proceed to a full merits hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriments on grounds of making alleged protected disclosures was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal claim said to be automatically unfair under s.103A ERA 1996; the parties agreed it could not be pursued after the strike-out of the detriments claim and it was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under s.26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- s.103A 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.