Mr J Welch, Lay Representative For the v Respondent — 2024

The Claimant, who remained employed by Tesco Stores Limited and had been continuously employed since 12 November 2018, presented a claim after ACAS early conciliation. In the claim form she did not tick the boxes for unfair dismissal, discrimination, redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay or arrears of pay, but instead described the matter as a "breach of the duty of care" to ensure her health, safety, welfare and mental wellbeing were being adhered to.

The Claimant's further material referred to an incident involving a colleague in January 2021, later alleged threats involving a knife, a gun and explosives, and asserted that she had suffered anxiety, fear for her personal safety and PTSD. In response, the Respondent said the Tribunal had no jurisdiction or, alternatively, that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The Respondent submitted that the case was in substance a breach of contract or duty of care claim and, insofar as it relied on health and safety, that the statutory provisions relied on did not fit the Claimant's situation.

Employment Judge M Ord held that the complaints set out in the claim form and reply did not identify a claim within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal. The judgment records that the matters raised might found a claim for personal injury for negligence, but that such a claim would fall within the Civil Courts rather than the Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and struck it out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

The judgment also records the Tribunal's conclusion that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because of that jurisdictional defect. No monetary remedy was awarded.