Case 1405912/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Shoreham Oral Care Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1405912/2019
- Decision date
- 11 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Amanda Harding, brought claims of age discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, unfair constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and wrongful dismissal. At the hearing on 28 March 2022 before Employment Judge Rayner, the tribunal recorded that these claims were dismissed in their entirety upon withdrawal by the claimant.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested. No substantive findings on liability or remedy were recorded in the judgment, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed in its entirety upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Unfair constructive dismissal claim dismissed in its entirety upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed in its entirety upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.