Case 2303596/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Cella v The Chief Constable Of Kent Police and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303596/2017
- Decision date
- 8 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss J Cella
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Corrigan at Ashford on 17 June 2019, dealt with two claims arising from the claimant’s proceedings against the Chief Constable of Kent Police, Diane Tate and Bob Platt. In case 2304032/2017, the claimant’s detriment claims for making protected disclosures against the second and third respondents were dismissed because the tribunal found they had no reasonable prospect of success.
In case 2303596/2017, the claimant’s ordinary unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because she did not have the requisite service to qualify to bring that claim. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claimant’s detriment claims for making protected disclosures against the second and third respondents in case 2304032/2017 were dismissed on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant did not have the requisite service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, so that claim was dismissed. | 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.