Case 3313422/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Haynes v Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3313422/2019
- Decision date
- 18 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Haynes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Norwich Employment Tribunal on 18 September 2019, Employment Judge M Warren dealt with case numbers 3313422/2019 and 3314336/2019. The judgment records that the claimant's claims against Mr Chris Travers were dismissed after having been withdrawn, but it does not identify the underlying legal characterisation of those claims.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's claims that she had been unfairly dismissed and subjected to detriment for having made protected disclosures were dismissed after having been withdrawn. No merits findings, legal test, or monetary award are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claims against Mr Chris Travers were dismissed after having been withdrawn, but it does not identify the legal type of those claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that this unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after having been withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as a claim that the claimant was subjected to detriment for having made protected disclosures; it was dismissed after having been withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.