Case 3332888/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Cain, Counsel For the v Mr M Jones, Solicitor — 2019
- Case reference
- 3332888/2018
- Decision date
- 25 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Cain, Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Watford on 15 October 2019 before Employment Judge Bedeau, the respondent's application to strike out the claim or obtain deposit orders was refused. The claimant's pleaded case included automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 ERA 1996, constructive unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination because of maternity, indirect sex discrimination, breach of the Flexible Working Regulations, victimisation, unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract. The tribunal proceeded on the papers and submissions only, without oral evidence.
On victimisation, the judge rejected the claimant's contention that the 19 April 2018 discussion and the 14 June 2018 resignation email were protected acts. He held that the first protected act was the grounds of appeal against the grievance outcome dated 19 July 2018, so only alleged detriments on or after that date could be relied on.
On the flexible working complaint, the tribunal held that there was a live issue as to when the request was made and whether regulation 4(b) of the Flexible Working Regulations 2014 required the claimant to identify a previous request made before those regulations came into force. It considered that issue unclear and suitable for the final hearing, and it ordered the claimant to provide further information by 4 pm on 5 November 2019 because the claims were insufficiently specific.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Pleaded as automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 ERA 1996; the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order application was refused and no merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Included in the respondent's strike-out and deposit-order application; the application was refused and the merits were left for the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pleaded as direct sex discrimination because of maternity; the tribunal refused strike-out or deposit orders and made no merits finding. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Pleaded as indirect sex discrimination; the tribunal refused strike-out or deposit orders and made no merits finding. | Other | Sex | — |
| Flexible working | The tribunal held that the validity of the request and the effect of regulation 4(b) of the Flexible Working Regulations 2014 were issues for the final hearing, so the claim was not struck out. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judge held that the claimant's first protected act was the grounds of appeal against the grievance outcome dated 19 July 2018; the 19 April 2018 discussion and 14 June 2018 resignation email were not protected acts. | Other |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 4(b) Flexible Working Regulations 2014
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.