Case 2303901/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Miss J Acus For the v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 2303901/2018
Decision date: 23 September 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Balogun Date

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Miss J Acus For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary-issue judgment only. Employment Judge Balogun held that the whistleblowing detriment claims at paragraphs 5b and 5c of the draft list of issues were struck out because they had been presented out of time. The written record does not set out any merits findings on those allegations.

The tribunal also recorded that the detriment allegations at paragraph d i. and ii. were dismissed upon withdrawal, and that the victimisation allegations at paragraph 37 b and c were dismissed upon withdrawal. No remedy was assessed or awarded in this judgment. The record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard procedure.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The whistleblowing detriment claims at paragraphs 5b and 5c of the draft list of issues were struck out because they were presented out of time.	Struck out	—	—
Other	The judgment refers only to 'the detriment allegations at paragraph d i. and ii. of the draft list of issues'; it says they were dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—
Victimisation	The victimisation allegations at paragraph 37 b and c of the draft list of issues were dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.