Case 2402530/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A McDermott v Sellafield Limited and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402530/2019
- Decision date
- 13 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms A McDermott
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had brought claims of detriment for making protected disclosures and victimisation against three respondents. At this preliminary hearing she applied for the respondents' responses to be struck out, or alternatively for deposit orders, relying on alleged disclosure issues and alleged lack of merit in the responses.
The tribunal held that there was a significant core of disputed facts and that oral evidence would be required at the final hearing. It decided that the responses could not be said to have no or little reasonable prospects of success, that a fair trial remained possible, and that it would not be appropriate to deprive the respondents of the opportunity to defend the claim.
The applications for strike out and deposit orders were refused. The whistleblowing detriment and victimisation claims were to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary hearing only. The claimant's claim of detriment for making protected disclosures was not finally determined; the tribunal refused the claimant's applications for strike out or deposit orders against the respondents and directed that the claim proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | Preliminary hearing only. The claimant's victimisation claim was not finally determined; the tribunal refused the claimant's applications for strike out or deposit orders against the respondents and directed that the claim proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
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.
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.