Case 1306219/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P White (Consultant) For the v Mr P Roberts — 2022
- Case reference
- 1306219/2020
- Decision date
- 10 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P White (Consultant) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Birmingham on 10 February 2022, before Employment Judge Gaskell sitting alone, dealt with three claims brought by Miss S Jones against Fixed Wheel Brewery Limited. The wrongful dismissal claim and the discrimination claim on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity were each recorded as dismissed upon being withdrawn by the claimant.
The remaining unfair dismissal claim, brought pursuant to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, was found not well-founded and dismissed. No written reasons were provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons was made within the stated time limit.
No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed upon being withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the discrimination claim on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity was dismissed upon being withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim pursuant to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.