Case 1806835/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Sharpe, Solicitor (Best Solicitors) v Dexel Tyre Company Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806835/2019
- Decision date
- 10 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Sharpe, Solicitor (Best Solicitors)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short dismissal judgment dealing only with a duplicate claim. The tribunal recorded that claim number 1806835/2019 was the second claim presented after an earlier claim, number 1806666/2019, had already been lodged and acknowledged by the Tribunal.
The reasons explain that the later claim was identical to the first, apart from a note saying that an ET1 had also been made on 6 November 2019 and had not been acknowledged, so the claim was being submitted again. This created confusion about response dates and correspondence, because one claim named the claimant directly and the duplicate named Best Solicitors as representative.
By the hearing, the confusion had been resolved. Miss Sharpe agreed that the duplicate second claim should be withdrawn and had no objection to it being dismissed on that basis. The tribunal therefore dismissed case 1806835/2019 on withdrawal.
The judgment states that case 1806666/2019 was unaffected and that case management orders for that claim were dealt with separately. No substantive findings on the underlying employment claims or any remedy were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim issued under case number 1806835/2019 was the duplicate claim referred to in the reasons. Miss Sharpe agreed that it should be withdrawn, and the tribunal dismissed it on that basis. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.