Case 1305109/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Mitchell v Gowling WLG (UK) LLP CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under the provisions of — 2019
- Case reference
- 1305109/2018
- Decision date
- 15 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Mitchell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis document is a certificate of correction to the preliminary-hearing judgment sent to the parties on 15 March 2019. It corrects the record under rule 69 and records that, by consent, Gowling WLG (UK) LLP was dismissed as a respondent from the claims.
The certificate records that the claimant's detriment complaints under s.48 of the ERA, numbered 9, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25 and 30 in the schedule of complaints, were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. It also records that the unlawful deduction from wages claim, pleaded in the alternative as a breach of contract claim, was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
The certificate contains no merits findings, no legal analysis beyond the correction note, and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The detriment complaints pleaded under s.48 ERA were numbered 9, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25 and 30 in the schedule of complaints; they were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction from wages claim, pleaded in the alternative as a breach of contract claim at paragraph 3.78.1 of the second claim form, was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.