Case 1800995/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Cartlidge, Solicitor v Mr T Goldrup, Consultant — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800995/2020
- Decision date
- 9 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Cartlidge, Solicitor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Brain in Sheffield on 2 April 2020, with the written record sent to the parties on 9 April 2020. The claimant was represented by Miss E Cartlidge, solicitor, and the respondents were represented by Mr T Goldrup, consultant.
The only complaint determined in this judgment was the claimant's complaint of direct disability discrimination against the first respondent. The claimant withdrew that complaint, with consent given through his solicitor, and the tribunal recorded that it stood dismissed upon withdrawal.
The judgment states that the remaining complaints raised by the claimant against the respondents were unaffected by this decision. No merits findings or remedy assessment were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At the preliminary hearing, the claimant withdrew the complaint of direct disability discrimination against the first respondent, and the tribunal recorded that the complaint stood dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.