Case 6010975/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D. Parchment (the Claimant) For the v Mr J. Boyed — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010975/2024
- Decision date
- 21 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hunt Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D. Parchment (the Claimant) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury Saint Edmunds by CVP on 24 January 2025 before Employment Judge Hunt. The written judgment records that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr J. Boyed. The tribunal did not give written reasons at that stage, stating that reasons had been given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of sending the record of decision.
The tribunal struck out the claims of non-protected characteristic discrimination, unfair treatment, failure to comply with a duty of care, exclusion, and failure to provide protection from stress on the basis that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. The judgment states that this strike-out would take effect on the later of 4pm on 21 February 2025, or, if the claimant presented an application to amend her claim by that time, the date on which that application was determined.
The judgment further states that if any application to amend were refused, case number 6010975/2024 would be struck out in its entirety. If an amendment were allowed, the amendment would be the only claim to proceed. No monetary remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim described as non-protected characteristic discrimination for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim described as unfair treatment for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim described as failure to comply with a duty of care for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim described as exclusion for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim described as failure to provide protection from stress for want of jurisdiction. | 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.