Case 2201791/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Johns (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201791/2023
- Decision date
- 7 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr R Johns (counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing held on 7 September 2023 before Employment Judge Emery at London Central by video, the tribunal recorded that the claimant, Ms M U Chigboh-Anyadi, was represented by Mr R Johns and the respondent, Bishop Lloyd & Jackson Solicitors Limited, was represented by Ms K Sheridan. The judgment identifies a single claim of unfair dismissal.
The tribunal declared that the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. The extracted written judgment does not set out the factual findings or legal reasoning behind that conclusion.
The record also states that the reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment. No monetary remedy or award is recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states only that the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. No remedy figure or detailed reasoning is set out in the extracted text; it notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.