Case 2500799/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Davison v The Commissioner for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs Heard By: Newcastle Employment Tribunal By: Cloud Video Platform (CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500799/2021
- Decision date
- 8 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant brought victimisation complaints against The Commissioner for His Majesty's Revenue & Customs. The complaints were identified by number by reference to an Agreed List of Complaints set out in an order dated 1 June 2022.
The tribunal dismissed complaints numbered 3, 5-13 inclusive, and 16 upon withdrawal. It struck out complaints numbered 1, 2, 4, 14, and 15 as an abuse of process under the rule in Henderson v Henderson. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and no remedy was awarded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaints numbered 3, 5-13 inclusive, and 16 in the Agreed List of Complaints were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaints numbered 1, 2, 4, 14, and 15 in the Agreed List of Complaints were struck out as an abuse of process under the rule in Henderson v Henderson. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Henderson v Henderson
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.