Case 2404472/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Rose v Jet2.com Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2404472/2018
- Decision date
- 6 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Langridge REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Rose
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal struck out the claimant's claim of unlawful harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The judgment stated that the claimant's application identified no other Equality Act 2010 claims and that no amendment application had been made to add claims under sections 13, 27 or 39 of that Act.
The Tribunal held that the only claim which could proceed was the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also refused the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's Response on the basis of alleged non-compliance with an order for production of an agreed bundle.
The Tribunal made case management orders listing the unfair dismissal claim for a two-day final hearing to address liability and, if necessary, remedy, and gave directions for the agreed bundle, an updated schedule of loss, and witness statements.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Claim of unlawful harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was struck out. The protected characteristic was not specified in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The constructive unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was permitted to proceed to a final hearing; liability and remedy were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 53(1)(a)
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.