Case 2400030/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Prangnell v Cumbria Gateway Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400030/2019
- Decision date
- 11 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Prangnell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Carlisle, Employment Judge Hoey, sitting alone, heard the case on 24, 25, 26 and 27 February 2020. The tribunal recorded that Mrs Prangnell’s claim that she was automatically unfairly dismissed by reason of making a protected disclosure under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also recorded that her claim that she was automatically unfairly dismissed under section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and was dismissed. No separate remedy was awarded or recorded in the judgment text provided.
The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim under section 103A ERA 1996 dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 100(1)(c) ERA 1996 dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(c) ERA 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.