Case 2601772/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr N Hartell v University of Leicester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601772/2021
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr N Hartell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the Claimant's application to admit further documents consisting of transcripts of conversations with former colleagues, some of which had been covertly recorded. The Respondent opposed admission on grounds including relevance, probative value, privacy, public interest and proportionality.
The Tribunal dismissed the application. It found that the Claimant had not specifically identified the passages relied on, that the transcripts did not appear to evidence the matters asserted, and that there was no probative value in admitting them. The Tribunal also considered privacy, public interest and proportionality, and concluded that admitting the transcripts was not proportionate.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing judgment dismissing the Claimant's application to admit further transcript evidence. The substantive unfair dismissal, public interest disclosure and disability discrimination claims were not determined in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham (UKEAT/0534/12/SM)
- Amwell View School v Dogherty [2007] ICR 135
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.