Case 1803663/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Mr I Wilson, Solicitor — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803663/2019
- Decision date
- 10 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Leeds hearing on 30 August 2019, Employment Judge Brain made a procedural order substituting Slingsby Advanced Composites Limited as respondent in place of Marshall of Cambridge Aerospace Limited. The tribunal recorded that the substitution was in the interests of justice.
The judgment also dismissed Marshall of Cambridge Aerospace Limited from the proceedings because it no longer had an interest in them. The written record does not set out any substantive findings on the underlying employment claims or any monetary award.
The note at the end of the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days. The public written judgment therefore records only the respondent substitution and dismissal order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment records only a procedural order substituting Slingsby Advanced Composites Limited as respondent in place of Marshall of Cambridge Aerospace Limited and dismissing Marshall from the proceedings. It does not record any substantive liability finding or remedy. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.