Case 2304350/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Oldham v Coombe Academy Trust Heard by Cloud Video — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304350/2019
- Decision date
- 5 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed
- Panel members
- Ms N Gledhill, Ms N Beeston
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Oldham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting by Cloud Video on 1-3 February 2021 before Employment Judge Reed with Ms N Gledhill and Ms N Beeston, unanimously held that Mrs D Oldham was not unfairly dismissed. The judgment does not set out the detailed reasons in the written record, because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal also rejected the claimant's equal pay claim. It found that the respondent did not pay its employee Mr Chelvachandran at a higher hourly rate than the claimant, and on that basis the equal pay claim failed.
The claimant's whistleblowing complaint, described as a claim that she was subjected to detriments as a result of making a protected disclosure, was found to have been presented out of time. The tribunal further found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, and it was therefore dismissed on that basis.
No costs order was made. The written record notes that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Equal pay | The tribunal said the respondent did not pay Mr Chelvachandran at a higher hourly rate than the claimant, so the equal pay claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim for detriments arising from making a protected disclosure was presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | 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.