Case 1403412/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Isaac v B&Q Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403412/2019
- Decision date
- 6 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Isaac
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Anstis sitting alone, the claimant did not attend and was not represented. The respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal's judgment was that the claimant's claims were struck out. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not set out the tribunal's reasoning or any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out. This claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category because the judgment text does not separately identify each claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out. This claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category because the judgment text does not separately identify each claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out. This claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category because the judgment text does not separately identify each claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out. This claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category because the judgment text does not separately identify each claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out. This claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category because the judgment text does not separately identify each claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.