Case 2206830/2018 · Employment Tribunal
MRS HD SMITH v Globalgrange Ltd Preliminary Hearing — 2019
- Case reference
- 2206830/2018
- Decision date
- 14 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MRS HD SMITH
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing at London Central before Employment Judge Oliver Segal Q.C. The respondent conceded the claimant's unfair dismissal claim shortly before the hearing, and the judgment records that the claimant succeeded in that claim by consent. The parties had also made open offers and counter-offers in settlement discussions, and the claimant had indicated that she was seeking costs up to a maximum of £20,000 in respect of alleged unreasonable conduct, but no costs decision was made at this hearing.
The tribunal did not hear evidence on liability because the parties wished to continue settlement discussions, and the judge allowed time for that purpose. By late afternoon the parties reported that they had not been able to agree the wording of a settlement agreement, so the proceedings were adjourned. The claimant's wrongful dismissal claim, and remedy in respect of both the unfair dismissal claim and any wrongful dismissal claim, were adjourned to be heard by a different judge.
The judgment also records that there was no implied criticism of either party or their representatives in the way the day progressed, and states that both counsel provided expert and cooperative assistance throughout the hearing. The case was to be relisted for a later hearing, and the parties were directed to notify the tribunal if settlement was concluded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent conceded the unfair dismissal claim shortly before the hearing, and the tribunal recorded that the claimant succeeded by consent. Remedy for the unfair dismissal claim, and the separate wrongful dismissal claim, was adjourned to a later hearing before a different judge. The judgment contains an apparent date inconsistency about the relisted hearing: paragraph 2 refers to 27 and 28 January 2020, while paragraph 10 refers to 27-28 January 2010. | Upheld | — | — |
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.