Case 3307915/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person. For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3307915/2020
- Decision date
- 24 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person. For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 24 August 2021 before Employment Judge Postle, the claimant applied to amend the claim to include a constructive dismissal claim and a claim under the Equality Act for the protected characteristic of disability. The tribunal refused the amendment.
The judgment states that, even if the amendment had been granted to include the disability claim, that claim would nevertheless have been dismissed because it had no reasonable prospect of success. No substantive merits finding is recorded on a live constructive dismissal claim because the amendment was refused.
The claimant also confirmed during the hearing that there was no outstanding claim for holiday pay or unlawful deduction of wages. The judgment records no monetary award and notes that written reasons were not provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Application to amend to add a constructive dismissal claim was refused; the judgment does not determine the merits of a substantive constructive dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Application to amend to add an Equality Act disability claim was refused. The tribunal also stated that, even if the amendment had been allowed, the claim would have been dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Disability | — |
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.