Case 2300226/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Messi v Coremont Partnership Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2300226/2023
- Decision date
- 1 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCann Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Messi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 18 October 2023, Employment Judge McCann refused the claimant permission to amend her ET1 to add direct race discrimination, race-related harassment, additional victimisation and whistleblowing detriment allegations, disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments, further breach of contract complaints, and unlawful deduction from wages claims. Applying the Selkent approach and the balance of justice, the tribunal held that the proposed amendments were substantial new claims, were sought late, and lacked apparent merit.
The claims that remained pleaded were automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996, victimisation in relation to dismissal, equal pay, and wrongful dismissal. The tribunal struck all four out under rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that none had a reasonable prospect of success, and therefore did not go on to determine deposit orders.
The dismissal-based whistleblowing and victimisation claims failed because the tribunal found that the relevant emails to the ICO and EHRC were sent after the claimant had already been dismissed in a telephone call at 16:30 on 6 January 2023. The tribunal treated the ET1 date reference as intended to mean 6 January 2023, not 6 December 2022, but held that the alleged protected disclosures and protected act could not have been the reason for dismissal because they post-dated it.
The equal pay claim failed because the tribunal accepted the respondent's documentary evidence that the comparator, GG, was employed as a part-qualified accountant, not in the claimant's purchase ledger accountant role. The tribunal noted that GG worked different hours and had greater responsibilities, including work on financial statements and audit requests, so the claimant could not establish that he was doing like work or work of equal value.
The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the claimant's January 2023 pay and the respondent's 25 January 2023 email showed that she was paid up to 20 January 2023. The tribunal found that this covered the two-week notice period from the 6 January 2023 dismissal call, and that the claim of unpaid notice therefore had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996, relying on alleged protected disclosures to the ICO and EHRC on 6 January 2023. The tribunal held the relevant emails were sent after the 16:30 dismissal call and struck the claim out under rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation dismissal claim based on the claimant's equal pay complaint to the EHRC and the respondent on 6 January 2023. The tribunal held the protected act post-dated the dismissal and struck the claim out under rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Equal pay | Claim that the claimant was paid less than her male comparator, 'GG', for like work. The tribunal accepted documentary evidence that GG was a part-qualified accountant in a different role, on different hours and with greater responsibilities, so the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice-pay breach of contract claim. The tribunal found the claimant was paid through 20 January 2023, including January salary shown on her payslip and confirmed by email, so there was no arguable failure to give or pay two weeks' notice. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Selkent factors / balance of justice amendment test
- rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- rule 39 little reasonable prospect of success
- Cox v Adecco reasonable attempt to identify the claims
- Chandhok v Tirkey essence of pleading
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.