Case 2305977/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mark Shanahan v National Opera Studio Heard at London South via CVP — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305977/2021
- Decision date
- 27 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mark Shanahan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination after his dismissal by the respondent. This judgment addressed whether the fact and content of a meeting on 31 March 2021 were admissible, including whether without prejudice privilege and s.111A Employment Rights Act 1996 applied.
The tribunal found that, by the time of the meeting, the claimant knew he was under formal investigation for serious allegations and that dismissal was a possible outcome. It found that there was a potential dispute and reasonable contemplation of litigation, and that the without prejudice rule applied.
The tribunal found no unambiguous impropriety and no improper behaviour. It concluded that the meeting was a pre-termination negotiation protected by s.111A for the unfair dismissal claim and without prejudice for the age discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. It decided that the 31 March 2021 meeting was protected under s.111A Employment Rights Act 1996 for the unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment did not determine the merits of the age discrimination claim. It decided that the 31 March 2021 meeting was without prejudice for the purposes of the age discrimination claim. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- without prejudice rule
- s.111A Employment Rights Act 1996
- unambiguous impropriety exception
- Portnykh v Nomura International
- BNP Paribas v Mezzotero
- Scheldebouw v Evanson
- Barnetson v Framlington Group
- Savings and Investment Bank Ltd v Fincken
- Garrod v Riverstone Management Ltd
- Woodward v Santander UK plc
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.