Case 2404072/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Brannan v McColl’s Retail Group Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 2404072/2018
- Decision date
- 19 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tom Ryan
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Brannan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Tom Ryan at Manchester on 13 to 15 November 2018. The respondent’s application to strike out the claim under rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 was refused. The tribunal then dismissed the complaint of detriment by reason of having made a protected disclosure, which had been added by amendment granted by EJ Slater on 17 October 2018, because the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to determine it as it had been presented out of time.
The tribunal also refused the claimant’s application to amend the claim to add a further complaint of detriment by reason of having made a protected disclosure. The final hearing of the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint was postponed to a later hearing on liability only, listed before a judge sitting alone on 7 and 10 May 2019. No remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment by reason of having made a protected disclosure was dismissed because the tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction as it had been presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.