Case 3311406/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Cameron v Beckton Dickinson (CME) UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3311406/2020
- Decision date
- 24 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Cameron
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent's time for presenting a response expired on 26 October 2020 and no response was filed. Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto stated that, on the available material, a determination could properly be made without a hearing on liability.
The judgment records only that the claimant's claims succeed. It does not set out the underlying factual findings, legal analysis, or any separate reasoning for the individual claims. The case context identifies the claims as public interest disclosure and unfair dismissal, but the judgment itself does not elaborate further.
No remedy was fixed in this judgment. Instead, the claimant was directed to provide a statement setting out the remedy she said she was entitled to recover and the basis for it, after which the Employment Judge would decide whether a remedy hearing was required.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the claimant's claims succeeded on a Rule 21 basis, but it does not specify separate findings for this claim beyond that general success. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant's claims succeeded on a Rule 21 basis, but it does not set out separate liability reasons for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
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.