2207444/2021

Google UK Ltd

v MZ

4 May 2022·Employment Tribunal·England & Wales·Employment Judge Goraj

Respondent

Google UK Ltd

All cases →

Decision date

4 May 2022

Tribunal

Employment Tribunal

Jurisdiction

England & Wales

Judge

Employment Judge Goraj

Case Summary

The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief due to lack of evidence supporting her claims of unfair or constructive dismissal. The case included allegations of discrimination, whistleblowing, and other issues.

Why this outcome?

No reasonable prospects

The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application because the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her underlying claims of unfair or constructive dismissal.

Key Issues

  • claimant's application for interim relief pursuant to sections 103A and 128 (1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is dismissed
  • the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal and claim for interim relief were accepted by the Tribunals, but remaining claims were rejected pending receipt of an ACAS Certificate

Decision Text

Full PDF

In the London Central Employment Tribunal Case no 2207444.2021 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant MZ Respondent Google UK Limited Heard at: Exeter (remotely) On: 11 April 2022 Before: Employment Judge Goraj Representation Claimant: in person The Respondent: Mr D Craig QC, Counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL IS THAT - The claimant’s application for interim relief pursuant to sections 103A and 128 (1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is dismissed. REASONS Documentation 1. The Tribunal has been provided with the following documentation by the parties for the purposes of this Preliminary Hearing: - 1.1 The claimant: - (1) the claimant’s witness statement/ application for interim relief (“the claimant’s application”) and (2) the claimant’s documents bundle (“CDB”). 1.2 The respondent: - (1) the respondent’s documents bundle (RDB”) (2) the respondent’s pleadings bundle (“RPB”) (3) the In the London Central Employment Tribunal Case no 2207444.2021 2 respondent’s bundle of authorities (“RBA”) (4) the respondent’s occupational health bundle (“ROH”) (5) the respondent’s skeleton argument (“RSA”) (6) Witness statement of Anna Frazer ( People & Culture Partner) and (7) Witness statement of Tim Lillicrap (Senior Staff Research Scientist). 2. The documents (where relevant) are referred to below accordingly. Introduction 3. By a claim form which was presented to the Tribunals on 8 December 2021 (paragraphs 1- 12 of the RPB), the claimant brought claims which included claims for discrimination because of disability, constructive dismissal, whistle blowing and interim relief (paragraph 8 at pages 6- 7 of the RPB). The claim

Something doesn't look right?

Report a wrong claim type, outcome, summary, or award.