Case 3300380/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Amanda Deallie v Farnborough College of Technology — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300380/2022
- Decision date
- 29 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Amanda Deallie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Reading Employment Tribunal on 19 January 2023 before Employment Judge Hutchings. The claimant, Miss Amanda Deallie, appeared in person and the respondent, Farnborough College of Technology, was represented by counsel. The judgment records that the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and a claim for other payments were dismissed.
The tribunal stated that it did not have jurisdiction. No substantive findings on the merits of the claims are set out in the written record, and the note confirms that reasons had been given orally at the hearing. The written record also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent.
No monetary award was made. The judgment does not record any split of the claims into separate remedies, and it does not identify any panel members beyond Employment Judge Hutchings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed after the tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction; reasons were given orally and no written reasons were provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment refers to a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 claim, which was dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a claim for 'other payments' but does not specify the legal basis in the extracted text; it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.