Case 2300268/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Chambers v Mayor and Burgess of the London Borough of Merton — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300268/2020
- Decision date
- 21 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Chambers
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal made an unless order requiring the claimant, by 1 December 2020, to provide further and better particulars of her unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims. The order required her to state when she said she was dismissed and how, and to give a brief description of why the dismissal was said to be unfair and/or wrongful.
The claimant emailed a further copy of her particulars dated 18 August 2020 on 1 December 2020, but the tribunal found that document did not deal adequately with the unless order. It did not address the first part of the order at all and was described as insufficient, unclear and incomplete in relation to the second part.
Because the claimant did not comply with the unless order, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims stood dismissed without further order. The judgment records dismissal only and does not make any merits findings or award any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under an unless order for failure to provide adequate further and better particulars; no merits determination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed under an unless order for failure to provide adequate further and better particulars; no merits determination. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.