Case 2309393/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Kristine Turlo v Zotefoams plc and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2309393/2025
- Decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Kristine Turlo
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal allowed the claimant's application for interim relief. It ordered that the claimant be reinstated to her former role pending the determination or settlement of her complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to rely on a document that had been inadvertently disclosed by the first respondent and contained litigation advice privilege. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and does not set out further findings or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment allowed an application for interim relief and reinstated the claimant pending determination or settlement of her complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. It did not finally determine the underlying complaint. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's application to rely on an inadvertently disclosed privileged document was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- litigation advice privilege
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.