Case 3301248/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Fox v Ministry of Defence — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301248/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Fox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 12 December 2024, Employment Judge George invited the claimant to make representations or request a hearing on why three complaints should not be struck out for want of jurisdiction: breach of the Data Protection Act 1997, breach of the public sector equality duty in s.149 Equality Act 2010, and pay discrimination based on membership of the RICS. The claimant responded on 31 December 2024 and confirmed that she had not intended to bring those complaints.
The tribunal nevertheless struck out those three complaints under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedural Rules 2024. The judgment says this was done in the interests of clarity because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider them.
The judgment also records that questions about complaints of unlawful acts within ss.111 and 112 Equality Act 2010 were not determined at this stage and would be considered at the preliminary hearing listed for 27 and 28 May 2025, because of the overlap with the application to amend the consolidated claim. All other complaints remained listed for that hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Breach of the Data Protection Act 1997; struck out under rule 38 for want of jurisdiction. The claimant confirmed on 31 December 2024 that she had not intended to make this complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Breach of the public sector equality duty in s.149 Equality Act 2010; struck out under rule 38 for want of jurisdiction. The claimant confirmed on 31 December 2024 that she had not intended to make this complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Pay discrimination on the basis of membership of the RICS; struck out under rule 38 for want of jurisdiction and for clarity. The claimant confirmed on 31 December 2024 that she had not intended to make a pay discrimination complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedural Rules 2024
- overriding objective
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.