Case 2201526/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Miss L Richardson v A City Law Firm Ltd — 2020

Case reference: 2201526/2019
Decision date: 15 October 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss L Richardson

Respondent

A City Law Firm Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

In this rule 60 judgment, Employment Judge Khan recorded that the claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract (notice pay) were struck out because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider them. Those claims were therefore not progressed to a merits hearing in this decision.

The claims for disability discrimination and a redundancy payment were not resolved by this judgment. The tribunal directed that those claims would proceed to the final hearing listed for 12, 13, 14 and 15 October 2020. No monetary award was made in this decision.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out because the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim.	Struck out	—	—
Breach of contract	The breach of contract claim for notice pay was struck out because the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to consider it.	Struck out	—	—
Disability discrimination	This claim was not determined on the merits in this decision and was listed to proceed to the final hearing on 12, 13, 14 and 15 October 2020.	Other	Disability	—
Redundancy	This claim was not determined on the merits in this decision and was listed to proceed to the final hearing on 12, 13, 14 and 15 October 2020.	Other	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.