Case 1800673/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Foster Mrs J Foster v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800673/2019
- Decision date
- 2 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Foster Mrs J Foster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment recorded that the claimants' complaint of sex discrimination had been withdrawn at a preliminary hearing on 10 April 2019. Employment Judge Little therefore formally dismissed that complaint.
The Tribunal found that neither claimant was constructively dismissed. On that basis, their complaints of unfair dismissal failed.
The claimants' complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages were held to have been presented outside the permitted time limit. The judgment states that it had been reasonably practicable for those complaints to have been presented in time, so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain them and dismissed them. No remedy award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination complaint was withdrawn at the preliminary hearing on 10 April 2019 and was formally dismissed in this judgment. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found that neither claimant was constructively dismissed, so their unfair dismissal complaints failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deduction from wages complaints were presented out of time where it was reasonably practicable to present them in time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain them. | 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.