Case 2404943/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Whyte v Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2404943/2024
- Decision date
- 27 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Whyte
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal struck out the claimant's discrimination complaints insofar as they related to matters before her dismissal on 19 June 2024. The Tribunal found there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that those matters formed a continuing act with the dismissal, or that it would be just and equitable to extend time for those complaints.
The Tribunal rejected the respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal claim and the discrimination complaints arising out of the dismissal on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success on the substantive merits. It also rejected the respondent's alternative application for those complaints to be made subject to a deposit order.
The remaining complaints were therefore allowed to proceed to a final hearing. No remedies were awarded in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of discrimination were struck out insofar as they related to matters pre-dating dismissal on 19 June 2024. The judgment does not separate disability and sex discrimination in the strike-out wording, but the listing categories identify both as discrimination complaints. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Complaints of discrimination were struck out insofar as they related to matters pre-dating dismissal on 19 June 2024. The judgment does not separate disability and sex discrimination in the strike-out wording, but the listing categories identify both as discrimination complaints. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | At the preliminary hearing, the respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal claim as having no reasonable prospects of success was rejected, and the alternative application for a deposit order was also rejected. The claim was not finally adjudicated and was to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination complaints arising out of the dismissal survived the strike-out and deposit-order applications and were to proceed to a final hearing. The judgment does not finally determine the substantive merits. | Other | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination |
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.