Case 1404871/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mrs C Richardson — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404871/2020
- Decision date
- 24 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 29 October 2021, Employment Judge N J Roper recorded that the claimant withdrew the claims against the named second respondent, Professor Moorhead, and that those claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment also recorded that, to the extent the claimant had brought claims alleging a breach of the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 and claims for detriment or dismissal arising from protected public interest disclosures, those claims were likewise dismissed on withdrawal.
The judgment did not decide the merits of the underlying allegations and did not record any award of compensation or other remedy. It stated that the claimant's remaining claims were unaffected and would continue as explained in the same day's case management summary.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed-term employee regulations | Dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment states that, to the extent the claimant brought claims alleging a breach of the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, those claims were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment states that, to the extent the claimant brought claims for detriment or dismissal arising from protected public interest disclosures, those claims were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.