Case 2603505/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Martin v Wm Morrisons Supermarkets Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603505/2020
- Decision date
- 17 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton For
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing judgment addressing amendment applications, strike out applications, deposit orders and case management. The tribunal found the claim form was properly presented, despite the first Acas certificate naming Morrisons Plc rather than WM Morrisons Supermarkets Plc, because the difference was treated as a minor error and the claim form contained the required Acas information.
The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was allowed to proceed. The tribunal recorded that the claimant accepted there was a redundancy situation but challenged the implementation of the process and the withdrawal of alternative employment. The respondent clarified that it relied on conduct as the final reason for dismissal. The tribunal also allowed amendments and further particulars for claims under sections 47B, 100 and 103A ERA, finding these were not new heads of claim but particularisation of claims already raised in broad terms.
The tribunal refused the amendment to add an equal pay claim, finding it was a new claim for breach of an equality clause, substantially out of time and not pleaded in the original claim. The separate sex discrimination claim was struck out because the claimant confirmed it was not pursued apart from equal pay. The disability discrimination amendment was refused and the disability discrimination complaint was struck out because the proposed claims introduced significant new facts out of time and had little reasonable prospect of establishing a prima facie case.
The tribunal refused and struck out the proposed trade union detriment claim, while making a £200 deposit order for the trade union dismissal claim. It also made a £200 deposit order for one whistleblowing detriment allegation concerning extra work, extra hours and being treated differently. Certain wage and contract claims concerning appeal and grievance hearing payments, expenses, overtime/additional hours and performance related pay were permitted to proceed or be further particularised, but the proposed claim about wages on 11 May 2018 was refused as a new, late amendment.
Claims and outcomes
11 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim was permitted to proceed to a final hearing; no merits outcome was determined. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal and detriment claims based on alleged protected disclosures were permitted to proceed, save that one detriment allegation concerning extra hours, extra work and being 'treated differently' was made subject to a £200 deposit order. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100 ERA for alleged health and safety reasons was permitted to proceed to a final hearing; no merits outcome was determined. | Other | — | — |
| Trade union | Dismissal claim under sections 152 and 153 TULRCA was allowed to proceed only subject to a £200 deposit order because it was found to have little reasonable prospect of success. | Other | — | — |
| Trade union | Application to amend to add detriment claim under section 146 TULRCA was refused and the claim was struck out under Rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
| Equal pay | Application to amend to add a breach of an equality clause claim was refused; the tribunal found the equal pay complaint was not included in the original claim form and the amendment was substantially out of time. |
Legal tests applied
17 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules
- Cocking test
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Chandhok and another v Tirkey
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.100 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.129 Equality Act 2010
- s.146 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.152 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.