Case 1400197/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J H Herriot v Exmoor Ales Ltd and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400197/2017
- Decision date
- 15 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Members
- Venue
- Exeter
- Panel members
- Mr T J McAuliffe, Mr J H Williams
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs J H Herriot
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Exeter on 15 July 2019, before Employment Judge Matthews and members Mr T J McAuliffe and Mr J H Williams, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's only claims in the case were unfair dismissal, age discrimination, holiday pay, and failure to provide written particulars of employment. The unanimous judgment states that those claims were dismissed by consent on withdrawal by the claimant.
The disposal was therefore procedural rather than a decision on the merits. The judgment contains no findings resolving the underlying factual issues or applying substantive legal tests to the claims, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment was dismissed by consent on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed by consent on withdrawal by the claimant, with no merits determination. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination claim was dismissed by consent on withdrawal by the claimant, with no findings on liability. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was dismissed by consent on withdrawal by the claimant, with no award made. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.