Case 2203263/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss O’Neill v The Health & Safety Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203263/2020
- Decision date
- 25 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wisby Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss O’Neill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in London Central on 25 November 2020, before Employment Judge Wisby, the tribunal recorded that Miss O’Neill was present in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Weiss, solicitor. The judgment deals only with the disposal of certain complaints and does not set out any merits findings on them.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s complaint of failure to pay a redundancy payment, and her complaints of discrimination because of pregnancy and maternity and because of marriage or civil partnership, were dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment also records that the claimant’s other complaints continued, so the decision did not finally determine the remaining claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the complaint of failure to pay a redundancy payment was 'dismissed upon withdrawal'. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the pregnancy and maternity complaint was 'dismissed upon withdrawal'. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The judgment states that the marriage or civil partnership complaint was 'dismissed upon withdrawal'. | Withdrawn | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
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.