Case 2302067/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Linda Stenhouse v Bellamy Wallace Partnership LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302067/2023
- Decision date
- 24 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Linda Stenhouse
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge D Wright on 18 April 2024. The judgment identified a set of emails as protected by litigation privilege, without prejudice privilege and section 111A(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and ordered that neither party may rely on that correspondence for the purposes of the proceedings.
The order expressly stated that the correspondence was not excluded for all purposes: either party may still rely on it when the question of costs is considered, and any admissibility issue can be dealt with at that stage if needed. The judgment did not determine the merits of the claimant's substantive employment claims.
The tribunal also directed that the final hearing should not take place before Employment Judge D Wright because he had seen the documents covered by the order. The written record says reasons were given orally at the hearing; no written reasons were provided unless requested within 14 days of the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing only. The judgment determined privilege and recusal issues and did not adjudicate the underlying employment claims. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- litigation privilege
- without prejudice privilege
- section 111A(1) of the Employment Rights Act 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.