Case 3202616/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sharon Morgan v London Design and Engineering UTC — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202616/2020
- Decision date
- 6 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sharon Morgan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote hearing on the papers before Employment Judge John Crosfill on 4 November 2020. The Tribunal recorded that the Claimant, Ms Sharon Morgan, applied for interim relief under section 161 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and that it had jurisdiction to hear the application.
The Tribunal found it appeared likely that, when the underlying claim was determined, it would find that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed by virtue of section 152. On that basis, and because the Respondent was unwilling to reinstate or re-engage the Claimant, the Tribunal ordered that the Claimant's contract of employment should continue in force for pay and other contractual purposes, including seniority, pension rights and continuity of employment, from the date of termination on 25 September 2020 until determination or settlement of the complaint.
The Tribunal also ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant from 2 October 2020 to the date of the judgment, and thereafter to pay the sum of £1,993.54 in respect of each monthly pay period thereafter. The judgment states that full written reasons were requested and would be provided in due course.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application for interim relief under section 161 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal found it appeared likely that, on determining the underlying claim, the Claimant would be found to have been unfairly dismissed by virtue of section 152, and it made an interim relief order continuing the contract of employment pending determination or settlement. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 161 TULRCA 1992
- section 152 TULRCA 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.
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.