Case 2300750/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A. Fatania v Johnsons Textile Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300750/2021
- Decision date
- 18 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A. Fatania
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 18 November 2022 before Employment Judge T.R. Smith, the parties were represented by solicitors. By consent, the tribunal dismissed on withdrawal the claimant's claims of victimisation, harassment, direct disability discrimination, automatic unfair dismissal under section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996, and detriment for health and safety reasons under section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment records no substantive liability findings on the merits of any claim. It is a short consent disposal only, and the tribunal did not make findings about the facts underlying the pleaded complaints. No remedy was awarded, and no monetary figures are recorded in the judgment.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. On the face of the judgment, the only outcome recorded is that the listed claims were dismissed on withdrawal by consent.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Dismissed on withdrawal by consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed on withdrawal by consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed on withdrawal by consent. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed on withdrawal by consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Detriment for health and safety reasons claim under section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed on withdrawal by consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.