Case 1801128/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Ms N Payne (solicitor) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801128/2019
- Decision date
- 16 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson Appearance
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Leeds on 16 May 2019 before Employment Judge Rogerson, the tribunal recorded that the claimant appeared in person and that the respondent was represented by Ms N Payne, solicitor. The only substantive order in the judgment concerns the claimant's discrimination complaint.
The judgment states that the complaint of discrimination on sex, age and religion grounds was withdrawn and dismissed. No findings on the merits of the complaint are recorded, and the judgment does not set out any remedy, legal test, or lay panel members.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment groups the complaint as discrimination (sex/age/religion) and states that it was withdrawn and dismissed. It does not distinguish any separate finding for sex discrimination. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment groups the complaint as discrimination (sex/age/religion) and states that it was withdrawn and dismissed. It does not distinguish any separate finding for age discrimination. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment groups the complaint as discrimination (sex/age/religion) and states that it was withdrawn and dismissed. It does not distinguish any separate finding for religion or belief discrimination. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
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.