Case 1601512/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Bouchard v G4S Care & Justice Services (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601512/2019
- Decision date
- 20 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Bouchard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is headed as a judgment on withdrawal under rule 52. It identifies Mr L Bouchard as the claimant and G4S Care And Justice Services (UK) Limited as the respondent in case number 1601512/2019.
The tribunal recorded that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The judgment does not set out findings on the merits of the unfair dismissal, discrimination, or victimisation matters indicated in the supplied case context, and it records no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records only that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The specific claim types are taken from the supplied Layer 1 gov.uk category context rather than separately itemised in the judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The judgment records only that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The specific discrimination claim is taken from the supplied Layer 1 gov.uk category context rather than separately itemised in the judgment text. | Withdrawn | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records only that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The specific claim type is taken from the supplied Layer 1 gov.uk category context rather than separately itemised in the judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.