Case 3313304/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 5th v Respondent — 2020

Case reference: 3313304/2019
Decision date: 4 February 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Alliott
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 5th

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the open preliminary hearing on 20 January 2020, the claimant said she had been employed from 9 September 2003 and that her employment ended on 30 November 2018. The judge recorded that there was no contract of employment, that the pay arrangements moved between Afterthought Ltd, Ben Ong Ltd and other entities, and that there was a triable issue as to whether there had been a TUPE transfer to Fyrtorr Ltd. On that basis, the ordinary unfair dismissal and ancillary employment claims were not struck out against the first, third, fourth and fifth respondents. All claims against the second respondent were struck out because the claimant accepted she was not contending that Dr Nicole Scheiner was her employer and made no allegations against her.

The pregnancy/maternity discrimination claim, based on alleged deprivation of maternity leave after the birth of the claimant's child on 2 November 2007, was struck out as plainly out of time and not one where time should be extended on a just and equitable basis. The disability discrimination claim was not struck out; the judge treated it as a possible s.15 claim based on sickness from March 2018 and the alleged unfavourable treatment of non-transfer to Fyrtorr Ltd and dismissal. The race and sex discrimination claims were partly unclear and much of the earlier material about pay, promotion and menial tasks was said to be time-barred, but the wider allegations about sickness being disregarded, statutory sick pay, non-transfer and dismissal were allowed to proceed.

The protected disclosure head, pleaded as detriment and/or automatically unfair dismissal, remained live but the judge said it had little reasonable prospect of success as currently put and made a deposit order in the sum of £100. The claimant's stated disclosures were summarised as alleged under-declaration of salary, payments for a house in Italy as business expenses and tax evasion. The claims for unauthorised deduction of wages, medical insurance, holiday pay, notice pay and redundancy pay were treated as live issues. No substantive compensation award was made at the preliminary hearing.

Claims and outcomes

10 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Ordinary unfair dismissal remained live. The judge found a triable issue as to who employed the claimant and whether there had been a TUPE transfer to Fyrtorr Ltd, so the claim was not struck out against the first, third, fourth and fifth respondents.	Other	—	—
Whistleblowing	The protected disclosure head, pleaded as detriment and/or automatically unfair dismissal, was described as opaque. It was not struck out, but the judge said it had little reasonable prospect of success and made a £100 deposit order under Rule 39(1).	Other	—	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The allegation concerned deprivation of maternity leave after the birth of the claimant's child on 2 November 2007. The judge held it was plainly out of time and that no tribunal would extend time on a just and equitable basis.	Struck out	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Disability discrimination	The judge treated the pleaded case as a possible s.15 claim based on sickness from March 2018 and alleged unfavourable treatment including non-transfer to Fyrtorr Ltd and dismissal. It was not struck out.	Other	Disability	—
Race discrimination	Earlier allegations about pay, promotion and menial tasks were said to be opaque and time-barred, but the wider race discrimination claim concerning sickness being disregarded, statutory sick pay, non-transfer and dismissal was allowed to proceed.	Other	Race	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

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.