Case 2404481/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Drayson v ABM Catering Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404481/2023
- Decision date
- 23 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Drayson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 9 February 2024 before Employment Judge Eeley, the tribunal considered Miss C Drayson’s claims against ABM Catering Ltd. It found that she had not made the protected disclosure on which her section 103A automatically unfair dismissal claim depended, and therefore held that claim did not have reasonable prospects of success.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had less than two years’ continuous employment with the respondent at the date of dismissal. On that basis, it struck out the unfair dismissal claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No remedy or monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant did not make the protected disclosure relied upon for the section 103A automatically unfair dismissal claim and held that claim did not have reasonable prospects of success. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment at the date of dismissal and struck out the unfair dismissal claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(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.
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.