Case 2204738/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Cobbing v V & P Global Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204738/2019
- Decision date
- 28 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss M Cobbing
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy correspondence dated 7 August 2020, the Employment Judge referred the parties to Timothy James Consulting Ltd v Wilton [2015] IRLR 368 and Urso v Department for Work and Pensions [2017] IRLR 304. After considering the parties' representations, the tribunal held that the claimant's allegation of constructive dismissal brought under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 had no reasonable prospect of success because those authorities establish that a constructive dismissal cannot amount to an act of harassment.
The allegation was therefore struck out under rule 37(1)(a). The judgment states that this strike-out did not affect the other complaints brought by the claimant, which were to proceed to a final hearing listed for 19-23 and 26-28 July 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal struck out the allegation of constructive dismissal brought under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, holding that it had no reasonable prospect of success in light of Timothy James Consulting Ltd v Wilton and Urso v Department for Work and Pensions. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.