Case 3305544/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Z Ivankovic, Fianceé For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3305544/2018
- Decision date
- 20 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Bean, Mr K Rose
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Z Ivankovic, Fianceé For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Watford, chaired by Employment Judge Bedeau with members Mr D Bean and Mr K Rose, dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the claimant's section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 unfair dismissal claim and the detriment claims under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996, each as not well-founded.
No written reasons were provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing and the written record states that written reasons would only be supplied if requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties. The respondent's application for costs was directed to be dealt with on the papers. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996; tribunal found it was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996; tribunal found it was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claims under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996; tribunal found they were not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.