Case 1804314/2023 · Employment Tribunal
in person v Ms Whalley — 2024
- Case reference
- 1804314/2023
- Decision date
- 11 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Miss M Oliver’s claims against the respondent, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, were dismissed following a CVP hearing on 11 April 2024 before Employment Judge JM Wade. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms Whalley.
The written judgment contains only the result and does not set out the tribunal’s reasons in typed form. It states that the reasons for the judgment were provided at the time, and that any request for written reasons to be typed would need to be made within 14 days.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no separate remedy findings are set out in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The written judgment does not identify the individual claims; the case listing categories indicate redundancy was one of the issues in the case. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Used for the case listing category described as Rights on Insolvency. The written judgment does not specify the underlying cause of action in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not identify the individual claims; the case listing categories indicate unlawful deduction from wages was one of the issues in the case. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment does not identify the individual claims; the case listing categories indicate working time was one of the issues in the case. | 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.
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.