Case 2302048/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Woodhead v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302048/2023
- Decision date
- 10 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Woodhead
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented an unfair dismissal claim on 11 May 2023 following dismissal with effect from 5 May 2023, and sought interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing on 14 July 2023 was conducted by video, no oral evidence was taken, and the tribunal considered the parties' written material and submissions before giving an oral decision, with written reasons issued later.
The tribunal applied section 129(1) ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited on the meaning of "likely", including Taplin v C Shippam Ltd, Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz, and Dandpat v University of Bath. It treated the question as whether the claimant had shown a sufficiently strong prospect that, at the final hearing, the reason or principal reason for dismissal would be protected disclosures under section 103A or health and safety activities under section 100(1)(a).
On the material before it, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had shown that level of likelihood. It accepted that the dismissal sat against lengthy disciplinary proceedings starting around September 2022, including a final written warning dated 13 December 2022 said to arise from persistent failure to attend a PIP meeting and failure to follow a reasonable management instruction, followed by a dismissal letter dated 5 April 2023 said to arise from ongoing refusal to engage constructively with the PIP process and a broken relationship.
The tribunal also found the claimant's case unclear as to the protected disclosures and the section 100(1)(a) activities relied on. It noted uncertainty arising from the relationship with the earlier claim numbered 2301998/2022, and said the claimant was not able to identify clearly from her pleadings or skeleton argument the passages setting out the disclosures or activities on which she relied. Because it was not likely that the final tribunal would find the dismissal automatically unfair on either basis, the interim relief application failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Interim relief application under section 128 ERA 1996. The claimant said the dismissal was by reason of protected disclosures and/or health and safety activities; the tribunal dismissed the application because it was not likely that the final tribunal would find dismissal for those reasons under section 103A or section 100(1)(a) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.129(1) ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Dandpat v University of Bath
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(a) 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.
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.