Case 2206077/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Da Silva v ING Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2206077/2019
- Decision date
- 19 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JOFFE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Da Silva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn a short judgment dated 18 May 2020 and sent to the parties on 19 May 2020, Employment Judge Joffe recorded that Ms C Da Silva had withdrawn the claims of direct sex discrimination, direct disability discrimination, the s15 Equality Act 2010 claim, the s26 Equality Act 2010 claim, and the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. Those claims were dismissed as a result of the withdrawal.
The judgment does not decide the merits of those claims and does not contain findings on liability or remedy. It states only that the remaining claims would proceed to a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Claim under s15 Equality Act 2010 dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claim under s26 Equality Act 2010 dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant; the extracted text does not specify the protected characteristic relied on. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.