Case 3322575/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Elliott-Money v Robert Fielder — 2020
- Case reference
- 3322575/2019
- Decision date
- 30 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Elliott-Money
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 8 December 2019, the tribunal gave Miss M Elliott-Money an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaints of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and in respect of SPP should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not make written representations and did not request a hearing.
Employment Judge Anstis therefore struck out those complaints on 30 January 2020. The judgment records that the claimant’s remaining claim for notice pay stayed listed for hearing on 11 March 2020. No monetary remedy was assessed in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out together with the disability discrimination and SPP complaints because the claimant did not make representations or request a hearing after the 8 December 2019 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out together with the unfair dismissal and SPP complaints because the claimant did not make representations or request a hearing after the 8 December 2019 letter. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to this as a complaint 'in respect of SPP'; the taxonomy does not include a specific SPP claim type, so it is recorded as other. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.