Case 1303684/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Ms J Patel (trainee solicitor) 1) Upon withdrawal by the Claimant, her claim of age discrimination is dismissed pursuant to — 2019
- Case reference
- 1303684/2019
- Decision date
- 18 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCluggage Appearance
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham on 18 October 2019, before Employment Judge McCluggage, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms J Patel, trainee solicitor. The tribunal recorded that the claimant withdrew her age discrimination claim and her disability discrimination claim, and both were dismissed pursuant to rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal also dealt with the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. That claim was struck out under rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No remedy or monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant pursuant to rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant pursuant to rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success pursuant to rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.