Case 1805035/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Soulsby v Next Retail Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805035/2019
- Decision date
- 27 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Soulsby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Mrs T Soulsby's proceedings against Next Retail Ltd were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant.
No findings on the merits of the claims, liability, or remedy are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; it does not set out separate reasoning for this listed claim type. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; it does not set out separate reasoning for this listed claim type. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; it does not set out separate reasoning for this listed claim type. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; it does not set out separate reasoning for this listed claim type. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; it does not set out separate reasoning for this listed claim type. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.