Case 2201795/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Wood v Lloyds Bank plc and Others — 2018
- Case reference
- 2201795/2018
- Decision date
- 1 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Isaacson Representation
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 28 September 2018 before Employment Judge A Isaacson, the tribunal recorded that the claims against David Dent, Matthew Fletcher and Dina Patel were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. It also recorded that the claimant's remaining claims were limited to those set out in the attached list of issues.
The judgment does not set out any substantive merits findings on the remaining issues, and no remedy or monetary award is recorded in the extracted text. It simply disposes of the withdrawn claims and leaves the remaining claims identified only by reference to the attached list of issues.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claims against David Dent, Matthew Fletcher and Dina Patel were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant, and that all other claims were also dismissed following withdrawal. The extracted text does not identify the substantive legal labels for the withdrawn claims. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.