Case 2301410/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For v Mr N Shah, Solicitor — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301410/2018
- Decision date
- 1 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Hyde
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 10 July 2019, the claimant confirmed that she had not intended to allege race discrimination, whistleblowing detriment, or a claim for unpaid notice pay/breach of contract. She said those matters had been ticked in error in the claim form and that she was content to withdraw them. The respondent did not object.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the race discrimination, public interest disclosure detriment, and breach of contract complaints forthwith upon withdrawal. The judgment records that the sex discrimination complaint was unaffected by this judgment, so no finding was made on that claim in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claimant confirmed this allegation had been ticked in error, was content to withdraw it at the hearing, and there was no objection from the respondent; the tribunal therefore dismissed it forthwith upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant confirmed she had not intended to make a public interest disclosure detriment claim, said it had been ticked in error, and withdrew it at the hearing; the tribunal dismissed it forthwith upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant confirmed she had not intended to claim unpaid notice pay or breach of contract, said it had been ticked in error, and withdrew it at the hearing; the tribunal dismissed it forthwith upon withdrawal. | 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.