Case 3305512/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Eemann v Quickfit Safety Belt Services Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 3305512/2024
- Decision date
- 2 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Eemann
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to determine whether the unlawful deductions from wages and public interest disclosure detriment claims should be struck out or made subject to deposit orders. The claimant alleged that she was owed statutory sick pay and other pay after going on sick leave, and that non-payment of SSP was a detriment linked to her contact with the Health and Safety Executive.
The tribunal found there was a reasonable prospect that the claimant could show a series of alleged deductions continuing into a period that would make the wages claim in time, depending on evidence about whether she provided ongoing sick notes. It found the detriment claim was fundamentally linked to the same alleged non-payment of SSP, so the respondent's strike-out application failed and the test for deposit orders was not made out.
At the outset, the claimant confirmed that she did not seek compensation for unfair dismissal. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | At this preliminary hearing, the respondent's application to strike out this claim or make it subject to a deposit order was dismissed. The merits were left for the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | At this preliminary hearing, the respondent's application to strike out the public interest disclosure detriment claim or make it subject to a deposit order was dismissed. The merits were left for the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant confirmed she did not seek compensation for it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- sections 23 and 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 38 Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 40 Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
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.