Case 3302331/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3302331/2022
- Decision date
- 17 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Case
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 26 June 2023 before Employment Judge Morton at Watford via the virtual region, the tribunal held that Mrs R Phelan’s claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, had no reasonable prospect of success and should be struck out. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr M Curtis, Counsel.
Because the claim was struck out, the listed hearing for 13-15 November 2023 would not take place. The written record also sets out issues that had been listed for status, time limits, direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010, but this judgment does not record substantive determinations or any remedy on those issues.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment only determines the s103A Employment Rights Act 1996 claim and does not record substantive findings on the listed Equality Act issues. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- s.103A 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.