Case 2602783/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Treadwell v Barton Turns Development Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602783/2022
- Decision date
- 25 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Treadwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a telephone preliminary hearing on 23 March 2023, the tribunal refused the claimant's second amendment application, which sought to introduce an allegation of detriment by reason of having made a protected disclosure in relation to paragraph 13 of the particulars of claim. The tribunal later noted that the first amendment application had been granted, but the whistleblowing-related amendment had been refused.
The claimant applied for reconsideration on 18 April 2023. Employment Judge Ahmed refused that application on the papers, finding that the points raised had already been substantively ventilated at the preliminary hearing and that the proper forum for any alleged error of law was an appeal rather than reconsideration.
The judgment therefore left standing the earlier refusal to permit the whistleblowing detriment amendment. It did not determine the merits of any underlying whistleblowing complaint and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for reconsideration of the refusal to allow an amendment introducing a complaint of whistleblowing detriment in respect of paragraph 13. This was a procedural ruling and not a merits determination of the underlying whistleblowing complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
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.