Case 3300969/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr P Nainthy, Solicitor. — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300969/2021
- Decision date
- 7 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment in a second set of proceedings following claim no. 3300406/2019, in which the claimant had already litigated Equality Act and automatically unfair dismissal claims arising out of her employment with Johnson Matthey plc. In this case she sought to advance new claims for automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996 and detriment under section 47B ERA 1996, said to arise from events on 2 and 3 August 2018 and the later dismissal process. The tribunal treated the matter as a strike-out application on abuse of process and limitation. Although the respondent had not filed a response, the judge allowed it to participate fully at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996. Struck out as an abuse of process; the tribunal also held it was out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to bring it within the primary limitation period. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 based on protected disclosure allegations. Struck out on the same abuse of process and limitation grounds. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Henderson v Henderson
- Johnson v Gore Wood & Co
- Agbenowossi-Koffi v Donvand Ltd
- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.48 ERA 1996
- reasonable practicability test
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.