Case 2404379/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Angela Furness v P3 People Management Limited and and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404379/2023
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Attendance
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs Angela Furness
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester on 6 March 2024, Employment Judge Tobin Attendance struck out the claimant’s harassment allegations listed at 3.1.1, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 because they concerned actions of third parties and the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction. The corresponding direct discrimination allegation under 4.2 was struck out with those allegations.
The tribunal also struck out harassment allegations 3.1.2, 3.1.5 and 3.1.6, again together with the corresponding direct discrimination allegation under 4.2, on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that there were no outstanding allegations, so the proceedings were dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Allegations 3.1.1, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 were struck out because they related to actions of third parties and the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction; allegations 3.1.2, 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 were also struck out under rule 37(1)(a) for no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The corresponding direct discrimination allegation under allegation 4.2 was struck out together with the harassment allegations. The extracted judgment does not specify the protected characteristic in the text provided. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.