Case 1806658/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Martin v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806658/2020
- Decision date
- 7 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms M Cairns, Mr G Corbett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Leeds by CVP on 5 and 6 July 2021 before Employment Judge Maidment with members Ms M Cairns and Mr G Corbett. The claimant was represented by her mother and the respondent by counsel.
The judgment records that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and seeking damages for breach of contract failed and were dismissed. No remedy was awarded and no further reasons or monetary findings are set out in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of disability discrimination failed and was dismissed, without further identifying the discrimination cause of action in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the complaint seeking damages for breach of contract failed and was dismissed. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.