Case 4122154/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Sorrell Ms M F O’Neill v Represented by: Ms E Mannion Solicitor Strathclyde Partnership for Transport — 2018
- Case reference
- 4122154/2018
- Decision date
- 14 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms R.
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sorrell Ms M F O’Neill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M F O’Neill applied for interim relief after lodging a claim on 29 October 2018 alleging that she had been automatically and constructively unfairly dismissed and that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that she had made qualifying protected disclosures. The tribunal recorded that the effective date of termination was 24 October 2018 and that the application was therefore in time under section 128(2) ERA 1996. It also noted that the claimant had been employed by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport as a Senior Legal Adviser from 1 August 2016 to 24 October 2018.
The tribunal approached the application on the basis that, because this was a constructive dismissal case, it first had to assess whether the claimant had a pretty good chance of showing that there had been a repudiatory breach of contract and therefore a dismissal, before moving to the reason for dismissal. The claimant relied on a series of events between 1 June and 12 July 2018, described as a last straw course of conduct, including exchanges with Valerie Davidson, issues about external legal advice, and the handling of whistleblowing and grievance प्रक्रesses. The respondent disputed the claimant’s account of the tone, meaning and effect of those events.
Having considered the evidence and submissions, the tribunal said its summary assessment was that the claimant did not have a pretty good chance of showing that she was constructively dismissed. It noted that there had been a decline in the professional relationship after 1 June 2018, but also that a significant amount of the evidence was disputed and that it could not say that either party’s evidence was implausible. Because the claimant had not shown a sufficient prospect of establishing dismissal, the tribunal did not go on to assess whether the disclosures were the reason for dismissal.
The application for interim relief was therefore refused. The tribunal did not make any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Interim relief application under sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996, brought in relation to an underlying claim of automatically and constructively unfair dismissal said to arise from protected disclosures. The tribunal refused the application. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- sections 128 and 129 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Taplin v Shippam Limited
- Parson v Airbus International Limited
- pretty good chance 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.