Case 2304557/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Niaz-Dickinson, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2304557/2018
- Decision date
- 5 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyde Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Niaz-Dickinson, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment in which Employment Judge Hyde, sitting alone at London South on 24 September 2019, determined only whether the claimant could bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal held that Mrs C Black was entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The decision did not determine liability for unfair dismissal, did not make findings on the substantive dismissal complaint, and did not award any remedy. Written reasons were not provided because the reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not determined in this decision. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.