Case 1406054/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Bailey v Cotswold Printing Company Ltd (Ta Wercxo) and others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1406054/2020
- Decision date
- 2 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a hybrid hearing at Bristol on 24 February 2022 before Employment Judge Midgley, with Miss Bailey represented by Mrs S Mansfield and the four respondents represented by Mr A Soble. The written judgment records only that the claims against the Third and Fourth Respondents were dismissed.
The judgment does not set out the substantive issues, findings of fact, or legal reasoning for that dismissal. It also does not identify any monetary award, and no remedy figure is recorded.
The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. On the face of the written decision, the only adjudication recorded is dismissal of the claims against the Third and Fourth Respondents.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written record only states that the claims against the Third and Fourth Respondents are dismissed. It does not specify the substantive claim type or give separate reasons for that dismissal. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.