Case 3200779/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Z Dinnen v Queen Mary University London — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200779/2024
- Decision date
- 26 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Z Dinnen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge Howden-Evans, held by video on 26 September 2024. The claimant was Dr Z Dinnen and the respondent was Queen Mary University London. The judgment records representation for both sides but does not identify any lay members, so the hearing appears to have been judge-alone.
The tribunal decided a single procedural issue: whether the complaints under s146 and s169 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and Regulation 9 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 had been presented within the applicable time limits. It held that they had been presented in time.
As a result, the complaints were allowed to proceed. The judgment does not contain any findings on the merits of the complaints and records no remedy or award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint under s146 TULCRA. At this preliminary hearing, the tribunal held it was presented within the applicable time limits and would proceed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Trade union | Complaint under s169 TULCRA. At this preliminary hearing, the tribunal held it was presented within the applicable time limits and would proceed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Complaint under Regulation 9 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. At this preliminary hearing, the tribunal held it was presented within the applicable time limits and would proceed. | Upheld | — | — |
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.