Case 1804596/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr A Davidson (solicitor) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804596/2022
- Decision date
- 26 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 26 January 2023, Employment Judge Davies recorded that the complaints of age discrimination, race discrimination, religious discrimination, victimisation, and less favourable treatment of a fixed-term employee were dismissed in their entirety because the Claimant withdrew them. The judgment does not record any merits findings on those complaints, only that they were withdrawn and dismissed.
The only remaining complaint identified in the judgment was a breach of contract claim concerning an alleged failure to pay notice pay. The tribunal recorded that this claim would proceed in accordance with case management orders made that day, so no substantive outcome or remedy was determined for it in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed in its entirety on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed in its entirety on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment refers to 'religious discrimination'; dismissed in its entirety on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed in its entirety on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Fixed-term employee regulations | The judgment refers to 'less favourable treatment of a fixed-term employee'; dismissed in its entirety on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.