Case 3303904/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Thompson v Ringway Jacobs Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303904/2019
- Decision date
- 22 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Daniels
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing held at Watford by CVP on 17 September 2020 before Employment Judge Daniels, sitting alone. The tribunal considered whether parts of the claimant's case should be struck out and made a costs order at the end of the hearing.
The claimant's whistleblowing detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996 and her automatically unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996 were struck out. The judgment records multiple bases for strike out: repeated breach of Employment Tribunal orders under Rule 37(c), non-pursuit under Rule 37(d), no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37(a), and/or unreasonable conduct under Rule 37(b), where striking out was proportionate and in the interests of justice.
The claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims and her unfair dismissal claim under s98 ERA 1996 were not struck out at that stage. The record does not make any merits findings on those claims; it only preserves them for дальнейшее progression.
The tribunal also ordered the claimant to pay £2,900 toward the respondent's costs under Rule 76(1)(a) and/or Rule 76(2), having regard to the claimant's ability to pay.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriment under s47B ERA 1996 struck out under Rule 37 on the bases stated in the judgment, including repeated breach of Tribunal orders, non-pursuit, no reasonable prospect of success, and/or unreasonable conduct where proportionate and in the interests of justice. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for automatically unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosures under s103A ERA 1996 struck out under Rule 37 on the bases stated in the judgment, including repeated breach of Tribunal orders, non-pursuit, no reasonable prospect of success, and/or unreasonable conduct where proportionate and in the interests of justice. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's claims under the Equality Act 2010 were not struck out at this stage. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's unfair dismissal claim under s98 ERA 1996 was not struck out at this stage. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,900
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37(c)/(d)/(a)/(b)
- Rule 76(1)(a) / 76(2)
- s47B ERA 1996
- s103A ERA 1996
- s98 ERA 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.