Case 2300106/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Krispy Kreme UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300106/2021
- Decision date
- 3 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Preliminary
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held by telephone on 3 February 2022, Employment Judge K Andrews recorded that the claimant, Ms Y Ile, appeared in person and the respondent, Krispy Kreme UK Limited, was represented by a solicitor. The judgment lists claims of unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, unpaid redundancy payment and victimisation.
The tribunal did not determine the claims on their merits. Instead, it recorded that all of the listed claims were dismissed on withdrawal. No findings of fact, liability analysis, legal test, or compensatory assessment were set out in the judgment.
No monetary award was made, and the judgment records no split between heads of loss or other remedy. The only outcome recorded is that the claims were dismissed following withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim described in the judgment as unpaid wages; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim described in the judgment as unpaid redundancy payment; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.