Case 3202262/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Helen Clifford v McMillan Williams Solicitors Ltd and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202262/2018
- Decision date
- 27 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrowclough Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss Helen Clifford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the 15 August 2019 hearing, Employment Judge Barrowclough dealt with case management applications only. Miss Helen Clifford had brought claims against McMillan Williams Solicitors Ltd and Mr Dominic Harrison alleging constructive unfair dismissal, detriment for protected disclosures, harassment related to sex and victimisation, but none of those claims was finally determined in this judgment. The Tribunal allowed minor amendments to the ET3 and ET1, and ordered the Claimant to provide copies of the documents in her list by 29 August 2019.
Applying the relevance approach to specific disclosure, and referring to Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Beck, the Tribunal refused the Claimant's request for grievances, proceedings, settlement agreements and NDAs involving other employees or third parties. It held that the documents sought at items 19 to 24 did not concern the Claimant and were not necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the agreed issues already included the Claimant's complaints about Mr Wainwright and Ms Patel, and Ms Butler and Mr Barry, and that evidence from Mr Colum Smith and Ms Attree could assist on the prevailing state of affairs, but that did not justify the wider disclosure sought. The related application for costs failed.
The Tribunal also refused witness orders for five named individuals, relying on Dada v Metal Box Co Ltd and noting that the Claimant had not herself approached them and had not shown that their evidence would be relevant or necessary. It dismissed the strike out or deposit order application, finding no undue delay by the Respondents and that there were triable issues of fact for the full merits hearing. It also refused to join Business Growth Fund Ltd as an additional respondent because no issue within the Tribunal's jurisdiction was identified between it and the Claimant.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Underlying constructive unfair dismissal claim was not determined in this reserved judgment; the tribunal dealt only with case management applications and expressly noted that triable issues of fact remained for the full merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Underlying detriment for protected disclosures claim was not determined in this reserved judgment; the tribunal dealt only with case management applications and expressly noted that triable issues of fact remained for the full merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Harassment | Underlying harassment related to sex claim was not determined in this reserved judgment; the tribunal dealt only with case management applications and expressly noted that triable issues of fact remained for the full merits hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Underlying victimisation claim was not determined in this reserved judgment; the tribunal dealt only with case management applications and expressly noted that triable issues of fact remained for the full merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Beck [2009] IRLR 740 CA
- Dada v Metal Box Co Ltd [1974] ICR 559 NIRC
- Rule 34 (joinder; interests of justice)
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.