Case 3306906/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jose de Araujo v Surecare Barnet Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3306906/2018
- Decision date
- 15 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Byrne
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jose de Araujo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRegional Employment Judge Byrne, sitting alone at Bury St Edmunds on 10 September 2019, struck out the claimant's protected disclosure detriment claims under s.47B ERA 1996 with effect from 18 January 2019 because of non-compliance with the Unless Order made on 14 December 2018 and sent to the parties on 14 January 2019. The judgment states that this part amounted to written notice under Rule 30(1).
The judge also struck out the unfair dismissal claims brought under ss.100, 101A, 103A and 104 ERA 1996 because they had no reasonable prospect of success. As to the remaining claim for outstanding holiday pay, referred to in the pleadings as damages for breach of contract, the tribunal ordered a £500 deposit by 15 November 2019 as a condition of continuing to advance that claim and extended the time for payment under Rule 5 because of delay in sending the judgment. The tribunal also made a wasted costs order against Mr Wayne Lewis, the claimant's counsel, in the sum of £2,120 payable to the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment claims under s.47B ERA 1996 were struck out with effect from 18 January 2019 for non-compliance with the Unless Order made on 14 December 2018 and sent to the parties on 14 January 2019. The judgment records that this part amounted to written notice under Rule 30(1). | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claims brought under ss.100, 101A, 103A and 104 ERA 1996 were struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The remaining claim was for outstanding holiday pay, referred to in the pleadings as damages for breach of contract. The tribunal ordered a £500 deposit by 15 November 2019 as a condition of continuing to advance the claim and extended the time for payment under Rule 5 because of delay in sending the judgment. No final merits decision was made on this claim in the judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.47B ERA 1996
- ss.100, 101A, 103A and 104 ERA 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 30(1)
- Rule 5
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.