Case 2414193/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr J Hudson (Head of HR) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2414193/2020
- Decision date
- 9 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Manchester on 21 December 2020 before Employment Judge Johnson, heard Mr C J Devlin's claim against Voodoo Doll Limited. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr J Hudson, Head of HR.
The sole complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal was dismissed. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to accept the claim in accordance with section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The record also states that the claimant confirmed he did not wish to apply for permission to amend the claim to include a complaint of unfair dismissal arising from the making of a protected disclosure under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The sole complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal was dismissed because the Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to accept the claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.