Case 1402320/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. R. Wilkinson v Montrose Conveyancing Ltd. — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402320/2021
- Decision date
- 1 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Le Grys
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss. R. Wilkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Bristol CVP hearing on 18 August 2022 before Employment Judge Le Grys, the tribunal recorded that terms of settlement had been agreed between the parties in the claimant's case. It therefore stayed the claim for 14 days, until 16:00 on 1 September 2022, and stated that if neither party applied to relist the matter during that period the claim would be dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant at the expiry of the stay.
The judgment also disposed of the respondent's counterclaim, which was dismissed on withdrawal. No substantive merits findings are recorded in the written judgment, and the note to the judgment states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal recorded that terms of settlement had been agreed between the parties and stayed the claimant's case for 14 days until 1 September 2022. It stated that, absent an application to relist during the stay, the claim would be dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant at the expiry of that period. | Settled | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed on withdrawal. | 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.