Case 3304815/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3304815/2018
- Decision date
- 2 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Ms L Daniels, Mr B Smith
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 17 to 21 June 2019 before Employment Judge Cassel with members Ms L Daniels and Mr B Smith, the tribunal amended the respondent name to Dataforce Interact Limited. It then held that it had no jurisdiction to hear complaints of breach of protected disclosure and what is described as accusations of misconduct.
The written judgment says that the remaining claims were dismissed. It does not provide separate reasons for each remaining head, and the record notes that the judgment was given orally at the hearing, with written reasons only to follow if requested within 14 days of the sent decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear complaints of breach of protected disclosure and what is described as accusations of misconduct. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment states that the remaining claims were dismissed, but it does not give separate reasons for this head. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The written judgment states that the remaining claims were dismissed, but it does not give separate reasons for this head. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment states that the remaining claims were dismissed, but it does not give separate reasons for this head. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.