Sellafield Ltd and Others
Case Summary
Employment Judge Batten (sitting alone) refused the claimant's applications for strike out, alternatively deposit orders against all 3 respondents. The case involved claims of detriment for making protected disclosures and victimisation against Sellafield Limited, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and Ms H Roberts.
Key Issues
- •respondents' approach to disclosure
- •termination of the contract as advanced by the first and third respondents
- •second respondent's involvement in the management of the claimant or the service company’s contract/its termination
Claim Types
Decision Text
Case No: 2402530/2019 CODE V 1 z EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms A McDermott Respondents: 1. Sellafield Limited 2. Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 3. Ms H Roberts PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard at: Manchester On: 7 July 2020 Before: Employment Judge Batten (sitting alone) Representation Claimant: Mr C Milsom, Counsel Respondents: 1 and 3: Mr D Panesar, one of Her Majesty’s Counsel 2: Ms R Levene, Counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT The claimant’s applications for strike out, alternatively Deposit Orders against all 3 respondents are refused. REASONS The proceedings 1. On 19 March 2019, the claimant presented clams of detriment for making protected disclosures and of victimisation against 3 respondents. On 3 May 2019, each of the respondents filed their responses to the claim. It is accepted that the claimant is a contract worker pursuant to section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”) and/or a worker pursuant to section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”). 2. On 31 July 2019, at a case management preliminary hearing, the second and third respondents’ applications to be removed from the proceedings, Case No: 2402530/2019 CODE V 2 and the second respondent’s application for strike out of the claim or deposit orders, were refused. Case management orders were made and the case was listed for a 14-day final hearing. 3. Following a disclosure exercise conducted by their solicitors in late 2019, the parties became involved in protracted correspondence regarding disclosure. The claimant submitted subject access requests to the first and second respondent which produced further documents which the claimant says should have been disclosed in these proceedings. On 4 February 2020, the claimant made her application which led to this preliminary hearing. All 3 respondents wrote to the Tribunal to respond to the applic...
Employer
Case Details
- Case Number
- 2402530/2019
- Decision Date
- 13/06/2024
- Published
- 05/08/2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten (sitting alone)