Case 3321170/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Messi v Charles Novacroft Direct Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3321170/2021
- Decision date
- 11 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Brown
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Messi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Messi applied for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to her unfair dismissal complaint. The hearing took place at Bury St Edmunds by Cloud Video Platform on 11 January 2022 before Employment Judge T Brown sitting alone. The claimant was not present or represented; the respondent was represented by Ms K Eddy, counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the application. It recorded that it did not appear likely that, when determining the underlying unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal would find that the reason for dismissal was that specified in section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the statutory threshold for interim relief was not met.
The written record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days of sending the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application under section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996 for interim relief, arising from an unfair dismissal complaint said to fall within section 103A ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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
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.