Case 2601994/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Jane Marie Beresford v Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2017
- Case reference
- 2601994/2016
- Decision date
- 30 March 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Jane Marie Beresford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on amendment, strike-out and deposit orders. The judge applied the Selkent guidance on amendment, the 'no significant chance' approach from Anyanwu and North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezcias, and the limitation/discretion principles discussed in Rathakrishnan and Arthur. Most complaints not preserved by the earlier order were dismissed as having no reasonable prospects and/or because the tribunal had no jurisdiction, or were refused permission to amend.
On whistleblowing, the claimant relied on two alleged protected disclosures in August 2016 arising from a home visit to a child. The judge considered the case weak because the alleged disclosures were not clearly qualifying disclosures, the claimant could not explain why Jane Wright or Louise Martin would have retaliated, and the dismissal decision-makers were not alleged to have been directly influenced. Even so, permission was granted to amend in a whistleblowing dismissal claim under s.103A ERA and in whistleblowing detriment claims under ss.47B and 48 ERA, subject to separate £10 deposits for each.
On age and disability, the judge refused permission to amend a disability harassment complaint based on comments that the claimant was deaf and had a memory problem, noting lateness and expressing doubt that the remarks were related to disability. By contrast, the age claim based on the same remarks and on comments about grandchildren and a goldfish was allowed by the narrowest margin. The judge said that claim had little reasonable prospects, but not no reasonable prospects, and imposed a further £10 deposit.
The claimant did not comply with the unless order about holiday calculations, so all holiday and holiday-pay complaints were dismissed under rule 38 on 25 March 2017 apart from a residual claim for 7.63 hours at £9.83 per hour, described as £75. The judge also noted that if the deposits were not paid, the remaining complaints would be the £75 holiday claim and the unpaid wages and notice pay claims.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Permission to amend was granted for a whistleblowing dismissal claim under s.103A ERA based on alleged disclosures on 17 and 24 August 2016; the judge said the claim had little reasonable prospects and made a £10 deposit order. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Permission to amend was granted for whistleblowing detriment complaints under ss.47B and 48 ERA based on the same alleged disclosures; the judge made a £10 deposit order. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Permission to amend was granted for direct age discrimination and/or age harassment complaints based on comments about the claimant's age, grandchildren and a goldfish, and on remarks that she was deaf or had memory problems; the judge considered the claim weak and made a £10 deposit order. | Other | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Permission to amend was refused for a harassment-related disability complaint based on comments that the claimant was deaf and had a memory problem; the judge relied on lateness and questioned whether the remarks were related to disability. | Other | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint was only partly disposed of at this stage: the holiday-compensation element was dismissed under rule 38, but the wage and notice pay elements remained live for later determination. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Anyanwu v Southbank Student Union
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezcias
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd
- Arthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd
- Co-operative Group Ltd v Baddeley
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.