Case 1806371/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Gilbey, solicitor v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1806371/2019
- Decision date
- 13 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S Gilbey, solicitor
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Leeds on 13 December 2019, before Employment Judge Cox, the tribunal recorded that the claimant was represented by Mr S Gilbey, solicitor, and the respondent by Mr A Sands, counsel. The judgment is limited to the disposal of the proceedings and does not set out any factual findings on the merits of the claims.
The tribunal recorded that the claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. In this extraction, that is treated as a withdrawal of both claims rather than a substantive determination of their merits. No remedy was awarded and the judgment contains no findings on liability, compensation, or any separate heads of loss.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the disability discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.