Case 1303787/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Bridgewood (Lay Representative) For v Mr J Middleton (Solicitor) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1303787/2018
- Decision date
- 30 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
- Panel members
- Mrs S Petrulis, Mr G Bagnall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Bridgewood (Lay Representative) For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing held on 22 and 23 July 2019, Employment Judge Gaskell, sitting with Mrs S Petrulis and Mr G Bagnall, recorded that the claimant was represented by Mr M Bridgewood and the respondent by Mr J Middleton. The judgment was issued on 30 July 2019. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims for sexual harassment, protected disclosure detriment and victimisation were dismissed upon being withdrawn by the claimant.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Listed as a claim for sexual harassment. The judgment states it was dismissed upon being withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | Listed as a claim for protected disclosure detriment. The judgment states it was dismissed upon being withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states this claim was dismissed upon being withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.