Case 6019037/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Myra Miko v Department for Work and Pensions — 2026
- Case reference
- 6019037/2024
- Decision date
- 24 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Myra Miko
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied to strike out the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal complaint by reason of making a public interest disclosure, or alternatively for a deposit order. The tribunal considered written material and oral submissions at a public preliminary hearing.
The respondent submitted that the claim form did not link the claimant's concerns about unauthorised access using her sign-in credentials to her dismissal. The claimant submitted that this link should be inferred from the wording of the claim form, under the heading of victimisation and whistleblowing.
The tribunal referred to rule 38(1)(a) and case law warning caution in strike-out applications where a case has been badly pleaded by a litigant in person. It concluded that it could not say the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success, and refused the strike-out application.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refused the respondent's strike-out application concerning the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal complaint by reason of public interest disclosure; it did not decide the complaint on its merits. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A was allowed to proceed past the strike-out application; no final merits outcome was determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Mbiusa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd UKEAT/0119/18
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.