Case 3307533/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss V. Litchfield v TUI Airways Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3307533/2020
- Decision date
- 22 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss V. Litchfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 8 October 2021 before Employment Judge McNeill QC, the Claimant was given permission to amend her claim to add six further detriments. The amended matters included alleged failures concerning data subject access requests, a refusal by HR to discuss safety issues said to be protected disclosures under sections 43A and 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a failure to discuss occupational health and doctor’s reports, a failure to consider alternative roles while the Claimant was absent on ill-health grounds, a failure to engage an external mediator, and the way an internal mediation was conducted.
The tribunal dismissed as out of time four detriment allegations: refusal of additional annual leave, refusal of a four-week trip to India, failure to award a performance-based salary increase, and delay in applying for PHI cover. The order recorded that the amended detriments, together with three existing allegations about the grievance appeal outcome and the behaviour of Mr Hills and Paul Burraways in grievance meeting notes, would proceed to a full merits hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed as out of time; allegation that the Respondent failed to comply with the Claimant's request for additional annual leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed as out of time; allegation that the Respondent refused the Claimant's annual request for holiday to take a four-week trip to India. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed as out of time; allegation that the Claimant did not receive a performance-based salary increase. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed as out of time; allegation that the Respondent did not make an application for PHI cover early enough in the sickness absence process. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.