Case 2202737/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A N Vadasz v WGC Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202737/2019
- Decision date
- 17 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Professor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A N Vadasz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central Employment Tribunal on 17 December 2019, Employment Judge Professor A C Neal recorded judgment in claims brought by Miss A N Vadasz against WGC Limited. The claimant appeared in person with a friend, Ms C Toth, and the respondent was represented by Ms F Henry, HR Manager.
The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim alleging non-payment of wages upon withdrawal by the claimant. It also dismissed upon withdrawal the claimant's claim alleging unlawful discrimination by reference to the protected characteristic of race.
The remaining claim, alleging breach of contract, was struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records no monetary award or remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim alleging non-payment of wages and states it was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claim alleging unlawful discrimination by reference to race was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.