Case 1400770/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Paterson v Vinegar Hill Pottery Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400770/2022
- Decision date
- 17 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Paterson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Southampton on 29 January 2025, Employment Judge Dawson dealt with applications for costs made by both parties in case 1400770/2022. The written judgment records that the claimant's application for costs was dismissed and that the respondent's application for costs was also dismissed.
The record does not set out any substantive findings on the underlying breach of contract or race discrimination claims, and it does not record any monetary award. The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the usual tribunal procedure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment records only that the claimant's application for costs was dismissed. No substantive liability finding on the underlying employment claims is set out in this record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The written judgment records only that the respondent's application for costs was dismissed. No substantive liability finding on the underlying employment claims is set out in this record. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.