Case 1801800/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Bishop Respondent (1): Respondent (2): CT Plus Wakefield HCT Group v Mr E Nuttman, Solicitor (Ward Hathaway) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801800/2019
- Decision date
- 19 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Bishop Respondent (1): Respondent (2): CT Plus Wakefield HCT Group
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 12 July 2019 before Employment Judge Brain, the tribunal ordered that the second respondent, CT Plus Wakefield HCT Group, be dismissed from the proceedings because it had no legal interest in the matter. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
No substantive determination of the underlying claims is recorded in this written judgment. The document is limited to the procedural order dismissing the second respondent from the case.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment records that the second respondent was dismissed from the proceedings because it had no legal interest in the matter. No substantive merits determination is recorded in this written decision. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.