Case 1601140/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sarah Lewis v Mr Chris Davis MP and 1 other — 2018
- Case reference
- 1601140/2018
- Decision date
- 24 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs Sarah Lewis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short judgment issued with the consent of all parties under Rule 64 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. Regional Employment Judge B J Clarke heard the matter at Cardiff on 22 November 2018 and issued the judgment on 23 November 2018.
The judgment records that the claimant's claims against the second respondent, Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, were dismissed upon withdrawal. It also records that those claims continue against the first respondent, Mr Chris Davis MP, who became the only respondent in the proceedings.
The extracted text does not set out the merits of the underlying claims, any legal reasoning on liability, or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the claimant's claims against the second respondent were dismissed upon withdrawal and that they continue against the first respondent. The extracted text does not set out any substantive merits decision on this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant's claims against the second respondent were dismissed upon withdrawal and that they continue against the first respondent. The extracted text does not set out any substantive merits decision on this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.