Case 2204457/2022 · Employment Tribunal
AZ v BY CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204457/2022
- Decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
AZ
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis document is a certificate of correction under Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, not the substantive judgment on the merits. It states that the judgment sent to the parties on 1 March 2023, and corrected on 2 March 2023, is further corrected to anonymise the identities of both parties.
The certificate explains that the anonymisation is done so that the order of Employment Judge Laidler in four consolidated claims, which include this claim, is not undermined. It also records that the time limits for asking for written reasons, applying for reconsideration, or appealing are unchanged and continue to run from the date the original judgment or reasons were sent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This PDF is a certificate of correction under Rule 69 and does not set out the substantive merits decision or any adjudicated claim outcome. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 69 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.