Case 2201516/2019 · Employment Tribunal
MRS D PATEL - MR H PATEL v Cityfleet Networks Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201516/2019
- Decision date
- 5 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MRS D PATEL - MR H PATEL
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 5 November 2019 before Employment Judge Skehan sitting alone, the first claimant withdrew her age discrimination and disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 and her breach of contract claim limited to provision of hot drinks. The tribunal recorded those claims as withdrawn and dismissed, and made no findings on their merits.
The second claimant likewise withdrew his Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 claim relating only to use of lifts, which was recorded as withdrawn and dismissed. The judgment states that the remainder of the claimants' claims would proceed as set out in the case management summary, so this decision does not determine the substance of those remaining claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Withdrawn by the first claimant and dismissed; claim under the Equality Act 2010 for age discrimination. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Withdrawn by the first claimant and dismissed; claim under the Equality Act 2010 for disability discrimination. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn by the first claimant and dismissed; breach of contract claim relating only to the provision of hot drinks. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Withdrawn by the second claimant and dismissed; claim under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 relating only to use of lifts. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.