Case 3303862/2023 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 3303862/2023
Decision date: 5 December 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
Venue: Bury St Edmunds

Indexed: 16 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Claimant, employed as Head of New Product Development between 4 January 2021 and 16 December 2022, brought a claim for sums she said were owed to her under a rental agreement on the basis of a verbal promise made by the company's COO. She also sought at a late stage to amend her ET1 to add claims of unfair dismissal, race and sex discrimination, and an unpaid performance-related bonus. Employment Judge S Moore refused the application to amend, finding that the nature of the amendments remained unclear, that the proposed claims were new and out of time, that they were broad in scope and would require the hearing to be vacated, and that the Claimant's applications to amend had been confused and inconsistent.

On the breach of contract claim, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Respondent had entered into any obligation to pay the Claimant's private rent for the remainder of a rental term in the event of dismissal, which it characterised as a very unusual and onerous obligation. Even accepting the Claimant's account of a conversation with Mr Alvarez, the Tribunal found this went no further than an assurance she would not be dismissed soon after starting, and fell short of a long-term legal commitment relating to a rental agreement she said she entered into 22 months later.

The Tribunal further found it was not satisfied that the Claimant was obliged to make the £10,996.36 rental payment she alleged, noting that the registered landlord was Ms Tracy Skinner rather than Ms Kelly Bell (named in the rental agreement and to whom the payment was made), that there was no documentary evidence of discussions said to have taken place on WhatsApp calls, and that the Respondent had offered to pay rent monthly directly to the landlord but the Claimant had declined. The claim was accordingly dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's jurisdictional argument under paragraph 5(b) of the Employment Tribunal's Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	Claim for sums allegedly owed under a rental agreement, said to have been promised by verbal contract with the COO. Tribunal not satisfied any such contractual obligation was undertaken, nor that the alleged £10,996.36 payment discharged a genuine rental liability.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Claimant's application to amend her claim to add unfair dismissal, race and sex discrimination, and a claim regarding an unpaid performance-related bonus was refused. These were treated as new out-of-time claims rather than adjudicated on the merits.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.