Case 2300882/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Patel v Vinci Construction Management Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300882/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms N Patel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 20 March 2023 before Employment Judge Atkins sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that Ms N Patel's claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, breach of contract for unpaid notice pay, and disability discrimination against the Second Respondent were dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. The written judgment does not contain any merits findings on those claims.
The judgment states that it was sent to the parties on 28 March 2023. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded, and the note at the end of the written record says that written reasons would not be provided unless a request was made within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant against the Second Respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant against the Second Respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was for unpaid notice pay and was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant against the Second Respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant against the Second Respondent. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
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.