Case 3329395/2017 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Murphy v Delice de France Limited — 2019

Case reference: 3329395/2017
Decision date: 28 May 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Murphy

Respondent

Delice de France Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing in Watford on 14 May 2019, Employment Judge Alliott allowed the claimant to amend the case to add a protected disclosure point based on the 25 August 2017 email about the respondent's alleged threat to deduct £160 from wages for a parking fine. The judge treated that point as already appearing in the pleaded facts and said the amendment was no more than a labelling exercise. A separate alleged disclosure based on the respondent's accounting practices, said to arise from the 29 August 2017 email, was treated as a new claim in fact and law and the amendment was refused as out of time.

The age discrimination allegations were not struck out, but the tribunal held they had little reasonable prospect of success and made a £150 deposit order. The judge said the pleaded facts about the claimant being older than his line managers, their unease with his longer experience, and his criticism of the workplace did not show an age-related element. The claim was allowed to continue only if the deposit was paid.

The disability discrimination claim was also allowed to proceed only on condition of a £150 deposit. The tribunal assumed, for the purpose of the deposit application only, that the claimant was disabled and noted his account of a 1997 head injury and aphasia, but found significant difficulty in showing that the respondent knew or reasonably ought to have known of any disability, particularly because the claimant had completed a health questionnaire stating that he had no disability.

The breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages heads were not struck out or made subject to a deposit order. The tribunal considered that the claimant had an arguable case turning on whether his employment ended on 8 September 2017 or 12 December 2017, the effect of the oral dismissal, the dismissal letter, and the payment in lieu of notice. The claimant relied on Jeyes v Society Generale 2012, UK SC 63 on the contract issue, but the tribunal said the matter would depend on the construction of the contract and the evidence at a final hearing.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Permission to amend was granted in relation to the alleged protected disclosure in the 25 August 2017 email about a threatened £160 deduction for a parking fine; amendment was refused for the separate accounting-practices allegation said to arise from the 29 August 2017 email.	Other	—	—
Age discrimination	Not struck out, but the tribunal held the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and made a £150 deposit order; the pleaded facts were said not to show an age-related element.	Other	Age	—
Disability discrimination	Not struck out, but the tribunal held the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and made a £150 deposit order; the judge assumed disability for the purpose of the application only and noted the claimant's questionnaire stating he had no disability.	Other	Disability	—
Breach of contract	The tribunal held the claim was arguable and refused to strike it out or make a deposit order; the issue turned on construction of the contract and whether termination took effect on 8 September 2017 or 12 December 2017.	Other	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Considered together with the breach of contract issue on the effective date of termination and payment in lieu of notice; the tribunal refused strike out and did not make a deposit order.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.