Case 2300715/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs GM Cowie v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300715/2018
- Decision date
- 13 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs GM Cowie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Mrs GM Cowie's proceedings against Pizza Express (Restaurants) Limited were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant. It does not record any findings on the merits of the claims or any remedy award.
The claim categories available from the listing are unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages, and Working Time Regulations. The judgment itself does not set out separate reasoning for those categories, and the recorded disposition is withdrawal followed by dismissal of the proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant; it does not give merits findings. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant; it does not give merits findings. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant; it does not give merits findings. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant; it does not give merits findings. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.