Case 1300971/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss U Sharma v HSBC Bank plc PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 1300971/2018
- Decision date
- 1 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss U Sharma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 1 March 2019, Employment Judge Camp, sitting alone, recorded that Miss U Sharma's claim against HSBC Bank PLC was dismissed pursuant to rule 52. The judgment states that the claim had been withdrawn by the claimant in accordance with rule 51, that rule 52(a) did not apply, and that the tribunal did not consider it inappropriate to issue a dismissal judgment.
The tribunal did not determine the merits of any substantive complaint. It recorded that, if the claim had not been withdrawn and dismissed under rules 51 and 52, it would have been liable to dismissal under section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. The tribunal also stated that any complaints about events before 5 March 2014 would have been out of time and that the claim would have been struck out under rule 37(1)(e) and/or rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted text refers only to 'the claim' and does not identify any individual substantive causes of action. The tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 52 after recording that it had been withdrawn by the claimant under rule 51. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- rule 51
- rule 52
- rule 52(a)
- section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- rule 37(1)(e)
- rule 47
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.