Case 2500517/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Mucklow v North Yorkshire County Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 2500517/2019
- Decision date
- 25 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Middlesbrough ON
- Panel members
- Mr R Grieg, Ms S Wykes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Mucklow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the tribunal held that it was precluded from determining the claimant's claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because of a prior settlement agreement dated 16 November 2018. The judgment therefore dismissed that claim.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's claim of being subjected to a detriment for making a protected disclosure under section 48 of the Act would be heard separately, subject to orders to be issued. This judgment did not determine that detriment claim or any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 was precluded by a prior settlement agreement dated 16 November 2018 and was therefore dismissed. The separate detriment claim under s48 ERA 1996 was not determined in this judgment and is not recorded here as an adjudicated claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 48 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.