Case 3331610/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3331610/2018
- Decision date
- 26 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr D McIntosh, Mr M Z Khan
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Birmingham on 19 to 23 October 2020, the unanimous tribunal, chaired by Employment Judge Lloyd with members Mr D McIntosh and Mr M Z Khan, dismissed the claimant’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal. It held that the constructive unfair dismissal claim was unproven.
The tribunal also rejected the claimant’s whistleblowing case. It found that she had not proven she made a protected public interest disclosure to the respondent at any time, and she had not proven that she was subjected to detriments in the course of her employment, whether because of a protected disclosure or otherwise.
The claimant’s breach of contract claim concerning expenses incurred in the course of employment also failed. The tribunal said she had presented no evidence on that issue and had not proven the claim. It dismissed the proceedings in their entirety and granted the respondent’s application for a contribution towards legal costs in the sum of £1,000, which it ordered the claimant to pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the claim of constructive unfair dismissal was unproven and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found the claimant had not proved that she made a protected public interest disclosure and had not proved any detriments in employment, whether as a consequence of a protected disclosure or otherwise. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found no evidence had been presented and the claim for expenses incurred in the course of employment was not proven. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- across all upheld claims
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.