Case 3335450/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Penicela v HC One Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335450/2018
- Decision date
- 26 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloch QC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Penicela
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in Watford on 26 September 2019, Employment Judge Bloch QC held that the claimant's claims of automatically unfair dismissal due to protected disclosures, wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, failure to pay sick pay and detriment on the protected disclosures were out of time and therefore dismissed. The judgment records that those claims did not proceed to a merits hearing.
The claimant's race discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 were also held to be out of time and dismissed. In the alternative, the tribunal held that they had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal due to protected disclosures; held out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Held out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Held out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment describes this as failure to pay sick pay; held out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment on protected disclosures; held out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Held out of time; in the alternative dismissed under Rule 37 for no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37
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.
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.