Case 2205739/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Plevnik v Boerboel Trading LLP Jonathan Laidlow Michael de Majo — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205739/2018
- Decision date
- 2 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tayler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Plevnik
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short judgment on withdrawal under rule 52. The case was brought by Miss A Plevnik against Boerboel Trading LLP, Jonathan Laidlow and Michael de Majo, and the judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed after the claimant withdrew the claim.
No substantive findings were made on the merits of the pleaded issues, and the judgment does not record any liability findings, remedy assessment, or award. The text provided also does not set out separate reasons for each pleaded claim, only that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal.
The judgment is signed by Employment Judge Tayler and is dated 2 September 2019, with the notice to the parties recorded as sent on 2 September 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; no separate findings or remedy were recorded for this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; no separate findings or remedy were recorded for this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; no separate findings or remedy were recorded for this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.