Case 2602465/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mrs Pamela Reynolds (2) Mr John Reynolds v Fordbank Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602465/2022
- Decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(1) Mrs Pamela Reynolds (2) Mr John Reynolds
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment of 22 March 2023 by Employment Judge Camp was a strike-out and deposit order in proceedings brought by Mrs Pamela Reynolds and Mr John Reynolds against Fordbank Limited and Mr Andrew Reynolds. The tribunal struck out all and any complaints against Mr Andrew Reynolds except for one complaint that he, and through him Fordbank, subjected the first claimant to a detriment for making a protected disclosure by causing solicitors to send a letter dated 17 June 2022. It also struck out all and any complaints under or relating to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 apart from claims for underpaid wages being advanced as unauthorised deduction claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, and struck out all complaints under the Working Time Regulations 1998.
On the protected-disclosure complaint, the tribunal said the alleged disclosure was the first claimant, as company secretary of the first respondent, complaining about her own pay to the second respondent, who was a director of the first respondent and her brother-in-law. It considered that complaint to have little reasonable prospects of success because the claimant was very unlikely to persuade the tribunal at a final hearing both that she believed she was making a disclosure in the public interest and that any such belief was reasonable.
The tribunal had previously issued a proposal to strike out and a proposal to make a deposit order, invited objections by 11 March 2023, and recorded that none were received. It therefore ordered the first claimant to pay a deposit of £1,000 by 17 April 2023 as a condition of continuing to advance the protected-disclosure detriment complaint, and to notify the tribunal and the respondents by 18 April 2023 whether the deposit had been paid.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint that the respondents subjected the first claimant to a detriment for making a protected disclosure by causing solicitors to send her a letter dated 17 June 2022. The tribunal said the claim had little reasonable prospects of success and ordered a £1,000 deposit. The extracted text refers to the preliminary hearing date as both 15 February 2022 and 15 February 2023. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims for underpaid wages brought as claims for unauthorised deductions from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 were expressly excepted from the strike-out order. This judgment did not finally determine those claims. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | All and any complaints under the Working Time Regulations 1998 were struck out on the grounds that they had no reasonable prospects of success and/or, for regulations 10 and 11, that they appeared to be an abuse of process. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- no reasonable prospects of success
- little reasonable prospects of success
- abuse of process
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.