Case 2406196/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Raison v DF Capital Bank Limited and 4 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406196/2023
- Decision date
- 28 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Ms C Raison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Manchester on 18 December 2023, Employment Judge Dunlop held that the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint based on having made a protected disclosure was presented outside the time limit in s111 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear that complaint and dismissed it.
The tribunal rejected the fifth respondent's strike-out application. It also dismissed the claimant's claims against the third and fourth respondents on withdrawal, recording that the withdrawal followed the first respondent's concession that it would be liable for any pleaded act of discrimination found to have been carried out by those respondents. The remaining claims were listed to proceed to a further preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure was held to be outside the time limit in s111 Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's claims against the third and fourth respondents were dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal recorded that the withdrawal followed the first respondent's concession that it would be liable for any pleaded act of discrimination found to have been carried out by those respondents, but the protected characteristic is not specified in this decision. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s111 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.