Case 3300141/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Hayley-Bell v Arriva London North Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300141/2023
- Decision date
- 9 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Partington Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Hayley-Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mrs C Hayley-Bell's claims against Arriva London North at Watford on 13 and 14 November 2023, before Employment Judge Partington. The claimant represented herself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The judgment records two dismissal claims. The claim for automatic unfair dismissal under section 100(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and was dismissed. The claim for unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was also not well founded and was dismissed.
The written judgment does not record any monetary remedy. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the applicable time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 100(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 100(1)(c), (d) and (e) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 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.