Case 3204589/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Sylvanus Wright v HCT Group — 2021
- Case reference
- 3204589/2021
- Decision date
- 29 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sylvanus Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing by telephone on 26 November 2021 before Employment Judge Housego, the claimant, Sylvanus Wright, said that correspondence between HCT Group and his new employer had caused him embarrassment and difficulty and amounted to a breach of data protection obligations. He brought the matter to the Employment Tribunal as a stand-alone complaint about that correspondence.
The tribunal explained that Employment Tribunals are creatures of statute and can only decide matters Parliament has given them power to determine. It further explained that, although there are data protection laws, the Employment Tribunal had not been given jurisdiction to deal with stand-alone breaches of those laws.
The tribunal said that if a data protection breach led someone to resign, that might potentially found an unfair constructive dismissal claim, which the tribunal could hear under the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, Mr Wright agreed that the correspondence did not cause his resignation, because he had already agreed to move to the new employer.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim for want of jurisdiction. The judgment records no remedy, and Mr Wright was told the tribunal could not give advice on how to bring a data protection complaint because judges must not take sides.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was treated as a stand-alone complaint about an alleged data protection breach arising from correspondence between the respondent and Mr Wright's new employer. The tribunal held that Employment Tribunals had no jurisdiction to determine such a claim and struck it out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
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.