Case 6029828/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Tamburrini v Drax Power Limited Heard Sheffield by video — 2026
- Case reference
- 6029828/2025
- Decision date
- 7 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Tamburrini
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing concerned whether the claim should be struck out because of a COT3 agreement dated 22 April 2025, whether the named respondent was the correct employer, and whether Opus Energy Ltd should be substituted. The tribunal proceeded on a summary basis because there had been no directions for evidence and stated that nothing in the reasons constituted factual findings.
The tribunal considered the claimant's unchallenged evidence and the bundle. It found that there was clear evidence that the claimant had given actual authority in April 2025 for employee representatives to sign the COT3 on her behalf, but the crucial unresolved issue was the extent of ACAS conciliation officer involvement in bringing about the settlement.
Because the respondent had produced no evidence about what the ACAS conciliation officer did or said during the collective consultation, the tribunal held that it could not be said that the claimant's attempt to set aside the COT3 had no reasonable prospect of success. The matter was therefore not summarily dismissed, and directions were given for a second open preliminary hearing with evidence.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant brings an unfair dismissal claim, but this preliminary hearing did not determine that claim. The tribunal held only that the claimant's application to set aside the COT3 agreement could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success. | Other | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment records claims of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or exercising maternity leave rights, but this preliminary hearing did not determine those claims. The tribunal held only that the claimant's application to set aside the COT3 agreement could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.18B(3) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Clarke v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
- Moore v Dupont Furniture Products Ltd
- Whittaker v British Mail Order Corp Ltd
- Gloystarne & Co Ltd v Martin
- Freeman v Sovereign Chicken Ltd
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.