Case 3304149/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Amber Grantham v Genome Research Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304149/2024
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Dr Amber Grantham
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 20 October 2025 before Employment Judge Codd, the tribunal dealt with case management issues rather than the substantive merits of the underlying claims. The written record identifies an application by the respondent to rely out of time on its response to claim 6012794/2025, an amendment application by the claimant dated 8 July 2025, and the position of the second respondent, Elizabeth Borthwick.
The tribunal allowed the respondent to rely out of time on its response. The claimant's amendment application was found not well founded and was refused. Elizabeth Borthwick was discharged as a party to the proceedings. The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's usual practice.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The respondent was permitted to rely out of time on its response to claim 6012794/2025. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's amendment application dated 8 July 2025 was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The second respondent, Elizabeth Borthwick, was discharged as a party to the proceedings. | Other | — | — |
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.