Case 1801445/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Mohammed v Mr Vasileios Orliaklis t/a Darnall Dental Clinic — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801445/2023
- Decision date
- 24 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Mohammed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Maidment at Leeds by telephone on 24 May 2023. The judgment records that, other than as set out in the Case Summary of 24 May 2023 in the tribunal's note of the preliminary hearing on that day, the claimant's complaints set out in her grounds of complaint were dismissed because she withdrew them.
No substantive findings on liability are recorded in the judgment extract provided. The decision is therefore a withdrawal-based dismissal rather than a determination of the merits of the underlying complaints.
The available materials identify the case as including public interest disclosure, race discrimination, and unfair dismissal issues, but the judgment itself does not set out separate reasons for each complaint or any monetary award. No remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Listed in the gov.uk case categories for this judgment; the judgment records that the claimant's complaints were dismissed following her withdrawal of them. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Listed in the gov.uk case categories for this judgment; the judgment records that the claimant's complaints were dismissed following her withdrawal of them. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Listed in the gov.uk case categories for this judgment; the judgment records that the claimant's complaints were dismissed following her withdrawal of them. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.