Case 2301490/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Vince v Cygnet Surrey Limited and 1 other — 2017
- Case reference
- 2301490/2017
- Decision date
- 30 November 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baron Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms H Vince
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant, Ms H Vince. It does not contain findings on liability, facts in dispute, or any reasoned determination of the underlying allegations.
No remedy was awarded and the judgment does not record any compensatory, basic award, injury to feelings, or interest figures. The text is limited to the disposal of the proceedings and the date of judgment, 30 November 2017.
The case listing identifies the respondents as Cygnet Surrey Limited and Julie Fulk, and the associated case categories were disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. However, the judgment itself does not elaborate on those claims beyond the procedural dismissal after withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment only states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant; it does not separately identify the disability discrimination allegation in the text itself. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment only states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant; it does not separately identify the unfair dismissal allegation in the text itself. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.