Case 1804178/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Tanner v WH Smith Retail Holdings Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1804178/2019
- Decision date
- 11 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Tanner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 52 withdrawal judgment in Miss L Tanner v WH Smith Retail Limited, dated 11 November 2019. The tribunal recorded that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant.
The judgment does not set out any substantive findings on liability, any legal reasoning beyond the withdrawal, or any remedy award. No hearing details, lay members, or monetary figures are given in the text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The short judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The short judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The short judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The short judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.