Case 3305255/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Miller v Designworks Windsor Limited and 2 others — 2026
- Case reference
- 3305255/2024
- Decision date
- 23 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr M Miller
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claim was one of constructive unfair dismissal only. It found that the claimant's 7 July 2025 response to an earlier case management order provided further information about the existing claim, rather than adding a new claim, because the WhatsApp messages of 12 March 2021 had already been pleaded.
In the alternative, if leave to amend had been required, the tribunal would have granted it. The tribunal said there was no disadvantage to the respondent because the messages were already part of the factual background, and it expressed no view on the merits of the alleged contractual terms.
The respondent's application to postpone the full merits hearing listed for 3 February 2026 was refused. The tribunal noted that the parties had known about the hearing date since June 2025, directions had not been varied, and proceeding was in accordance with the overriding objective; it made further disclosure, bundle and witness-statement orders.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records that the claim is constructive unfair dismissal only, but this preliminary hearing did not determine the merits of that claim. It decided that further information did not require leave to amend, granted leave in the alternative, and refused postponement of the full merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- overriding objective
- rule 2
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.