Case 2300445/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Chute (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2300445/2019
- Decision date
- 28 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish Members
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms B Leverton, Ms K Omer
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms A Chute (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at London South over nine days in May 2021 before Employment Judge Hyams-Parish sitting with Ms B Leverton and Ms K Omer. The written record states that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
The judgment records that all of the claimant's claims failed. The whistleblowing detriment claim under s.47B ERA was dismissed, as were the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA and the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA.
The tribunal also dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim and the unlawful deduction from wages claim. No remedy or award is recorded in the written judgment, and no separate monetary figures are stated in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment claim under s.47B ERA dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | 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.