Case 2409256/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Jenkins v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409256/2023
- Decision date
- 15 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter Members
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr A Clarke, Ms B Hillon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Jenkins
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a litigant in person, brought claims against the National Trust arising from her employment and resignation in 2023, including automatic unfair constructive dismissal, detriment for protected disclosures under s.47B ERA 1996, discrimination on grounds of race, age and sex under ss.13, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010, and wrongful dismissal. The claim form was presented on 14 October 2023 following ACAS Early Conciliation between 3 July and 14 August 2023, and the tribunal found that discrimination and victimisation allegations relating to events before 3 April 2023 were out of time, with no conduct extending over a period and no basis to extend time on a just and equitable basis; those complaints were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
On the substantive issues, the tribunal found that the respondent was not in breach of contract and that the claimant's resignation did not amount to a dismissal under s.95(1) ERA 1996. The claims of unfair dismissal under s.98 and automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A were not well-founded and were dismissed, and the wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay accordingly failed. The detriment claims under s.47B were also dismissed, the tribunal finding that the claimant had not been subjected to detriments on the ground of any protected disclosure.
The victimisation claims under s.27 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed; the tribunal found that the relevant grievance, raised on 7 June 2023, was a protected act but was raised after the claimant had decided to resign and in anticipation of proceedings, and there was no causal link between any protected act and the alleged acts of victimisation. Because all claims failed, the tribunal did not need to decide remedy, although it observed that any award would in any event have been limited to the effective date of termination with no future loss.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claimant resigned; tribunal found resignation was not a dismissal under s.95(1) ERA 1996. Claim under s.98 not well-founded; automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A also dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Tribunal found the respondent was not in breach of contract; constructive unfair dismissal claim not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for one month's notice pay dismissed because claimant resigned and was not constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claims under s.47B ERA 1996 not well-founded; tribunal found claimant was not subjected to detriments on the ground of a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Allegations pre-dating 3 April 2023 dismissed for want of jurisdiction (out of time under Equality Act 2010 ss.13 and 26; no conduct extending over a period; not just and equitable to extend time). | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegations pre-dating 3 April 2023 dismissed for want of jurisdiction under s.26 Equality Act 2010 (out of time). | Dismissed | Race |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.95(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
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.