Case 2216219/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Miss Younis (solicitor) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216219/2023
- Decision date
- 22 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Talbot-Ponsonby Appearances
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Central London Employment Tribunal hearing on 12 March 2024 before Employment Judge Talbot-Ponsonby, the tribunal dismissed the Claimant's applications for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The written record states that those claims were 'not well funded' and dismissed; the extracted text appears to contain a transcription error, but no further reasoning is set out in the written judgment record.
The tribunal also refused the Claimant's application to amend his claim to include allegations of race and/or sex discrimination. The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties on 22 March 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal application was 'not well funded' and dismissed; this appears to be a transcription error for 'not well founded', but the extracted text is recorded as written. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal application was 'not well funded' and dismissed; this appears to be a transcription error for 'not well founded', but the extracted text is recorded as written. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.