Case 3200819/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs A Dooley v Mr Lee Williams and 3 others — 2019

Case reference: 3200819/2018
Decision date: 29 May 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Prichard Representation
Venue: East London Hearing Centre

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

5 named

Claimant

Mrs A Dooley

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the hearing on 31 January 2019, Employment Judge Prichard did not determine the underlying merits of the case. The listed preliminary hearing on strike out and costs was converted into a part-heard final hearing to resume on 10 to 13 December 2019, and the judge directed that the discrimination complaints be heard by a full panel of three because the claimant’s solicitors wanted a panel. The parties were also directed to exchange a schedule of loss, witness statements, and a consolidated bundle before the resumed hearing.

The reasons record the judge’s concerns about disclosure, particularly the explanation that emails could not be produced after a power outage and server failure. The judge noted contradictory material, including printed emails and evidence from Ms Chrysanthou about access to the info@woolstonmanor.co.uk mailbox, and said the recoverability of emails remained an issue for the final hearing. The judge stated that no findings of fact were made on the merits at this stage.

The claimant stated that her employment had TUPE transferred to the fourth respondent, which was consistent with the liquidators’ position that they had no liability for debts arising from her 10 years’ continuous service, said to be relevant in theory to redundancy pay and a basic award. The applications for striking out and/or costs against the first and fourth respondents were adjourned part-heard to the resumed hearing.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	No substantive claim was adjudicated in this preliminary hearing. The judgment converted the matter into a part-heard final hearing and adjourned the strike out and costs applications to the resumed hearing.	Other	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.