Case 3314044/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr J Chegwidden - Counsel PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314044/2021
- Decision date
- 11 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal recorded that Mr Legge had been employed by the Environment Agency from 10 April 2005 to 6 April 2021 and that earlier case management had identified claims including ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for protected disclosures, direct sex discrimination, direct discrimination because of philosophical belief, and victimisation.
The Tribunal recorded that Mr Legge's schedule of claims and issues did not pursue whistleblowing or harassment complaints, and that he confirmed at the hearing that he withdrew those claims. The judgment dismissed the whistleblowing and harassment claims upon withdrawal.
The Tribunal also decided that the respondent's applications for strike out and deposit orders did not succeed, and made case management orders for the remaining proceedings. The preliminary hearing did not make a merits determination or award compensation.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal was identified as part of the pleaded case, but this preliminary hearing did not determine the merits; the respondent's strike out and deposit order applications did not succeed. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for having made protected disclosures were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination was identified as part of the pleaded case, but this preliminary hearing did not determine the merits. | Other | Sex | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination because of a philosophical belief was identified as part of the pleaded case, but this preliminary hearing did not determine the merits. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was identified as part of the pleaded case, but this preliminary hearing did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to religion or philosophical belief was dismissed upon withdrawal. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.27(2) Equality Act 2010
- Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Limited
- Parekh v London Borough of Brent
- Rule 37
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.