Case 3202050/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Hallett v BA City Flyer Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202050/2019
- Decision date
- 13 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Hallett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt East London Hearing Centre on 30 October 2019, Employment Judge Jones heard the claimant's application for interim relief against BA City Flyer Limited. The judgment records that the application was brought under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal decided that it did not appear likely that, on determining the complaint to which the application related, it would find that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed by virtue of section 111. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed.
The judgment also records that the claimant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal in breach of section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was to be heard before a full tribunal at East London Hearing Centre on 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24 September 2020, with case management directions to be complied with in advance of that hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Interim relief application under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed. The tribunal held it did not appear likely that the claimant would be found to have been unfairly dismissed by virtue of section 111. The underlying automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A was listed for a full hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
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.