Case 2420737/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Kenyon v Auto Marine Cables Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2420737/2020
- Decision date
- 16 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Kenyon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote CVP hearing in Manchester on 12 February 2021, Employment Judge Dunlop heard Miss S Kenyon's application for interim relief against Auto Marine Cables Ltd. The hearing was by consent, no face-to-face hearing was held because of the covid-19 pandemic, and the parties were represented by Mr W Clayton for the claimant and Mr P Michell for the respondent. Oral reasons were given at the hearing.
The tribunal held that it did not appear likely that, when the complaint was finally determined, it would find that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was the reason specified in section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The application for interim relief was therefore refused. The written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief application only. The tribunal refused relief because it did not appear likely that, on determining the complaint, it would find that the principal reason for dismissal was the reason specified in section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.