Case 2304170/2018 · Employment Tribunal

in person For the v Mr D Widdowson solicitor — 2019

Case reference: 2304170/2018
Decision date: 9 April 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Truscott QC
Venue: London South

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

in person For the

Respondent

Mr D Widdowson solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At this preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Truscott QC considered two issues: whether the second to fifth respondents were competent respondents, and whether references to settlement discussions should be redacted from the claim. The claimant appeared in person and the respondents were represented by Mr D Widdowson, solicitor. The claimant said she had claims for unfair dismissal and breach of section 44(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The claimant pleaded unfair dismissal. This preliminary hearing held that the second to fifth respondents were landlords of the shopping centre and not the claimant's employer, so the claims against those respondents were struck out as disclosing no cause of action. The judgment recorded that the claimant could seek her remedy against the first respondent; it did not determine the merits of the underlying unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent.	Struck out	—	—
Other	The claimant also pleaded a breach of section 44(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal held that the second to fifth respondents were not the claimant's employer and struck out the claims against them for no cause of action. The merits of the underlying section 44 claim against the first respondent were not decided in this judgment.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

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.