Case 3314400/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314400/2020
- Decision date
- 3 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the case management hearing on 2 December 2021 before Employment Judge Bedeau at Watford, the tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend the claim so as to add two protected disclosures dated 20 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. It then considered the respondent's deposit order application and found that the protected disclosure detriment claims had little reasonable prospect of success, ordering deposits of £250 each, a total of £500.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's direct sex discrimination allegation, said to concern exclusion from monthly heads of department meetings, had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered a deposit of £250 in relation to that claim. The remainder of the respondent's deposit application was refused.
In relation to the Second Scott Schedule, the claims identified in paragraphs 1.1, 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.4, 1.6.5, 1.6.6, 1.8 and 1.9 were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant, although paragraph 1.6.6 could still be relied on as background evidence. The tribunal also ruled that, for continuing acts purposes, the claimant could not refer to matters after the presentation of the claim form on 27 November 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal granted the amendment to add protected disclosures dated 20 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. It held the protected disclosure detriment claims had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered deposits of £250 each, totalling £500. No merits determination was made in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the direct sex discrimination allegation about exclusion from monthly heads of department meetings had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered a deposit of £250. No merits determination was made in this judgment. | Other | Sex | — |
| Other | In relation to the Second Scott Schedule, the claims in paragraphs 1.1, 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.4, 1.6.5, 1.6.6, 1.8 and 1.9 were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. Paragraph 1.6.6 could still be relied on as background evidence. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.
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.