Case 3307055/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Andrews v Sole Bay Fish Company Limited and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 3307055/2020
- Decision date
- 14 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Brown
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss J Andrews
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury St Edmunds by Cloud Video Platform on 14 March 2022 before Employment Judge T Brown sitting alone. Miss J Andrews appeared in person and the respondents were represented by Ms Y Montaz.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint because it held that the Employment Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider it, having regard to section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the claimant's Equality Act 2010 complaints on the basis that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider them, having regard to section 123(1) Equality Act 2010.
The written decision records that oral reasons were given on 14 March 2022 and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal held that, having regard to section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996, it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers only to 'complaints of contraventions of the Equality Act 2010' and does not identify the underlying protected characteristic(s). Those complaints were dismissed because the tribunal held that, having regard to section 123(1) Equality Act 2010, it did not have jurisdiction to consider them. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
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.