Case 6006967/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms K Duffy, HR Manager — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006967/2024
- Decision date
- 24 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coen
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Coen, sitting alone at London Central on 15 April 2025, dealt with three case numbers: 6006967/2024, 6008289/2024 and 2224571/24. In case 6006967/2024, the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the Tribunal found she did not have the required two years of continuous service and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear that claim.
In the same case, the claimant's whistleblowing claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claims in case numbers 6008289/2024 and 2224571/24 were also struck out because they duplicated the claims in 6006967/2024 and therefore had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records no award of compensation or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.