Case 2301748/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Smith First v Gravity Thinking Limited Second Respondent: Andrew Roberts — 2017
- Case reference
- 2301748/2017
- Decision date
- 16 November 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baron
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Smith First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn Miss P Smith v Gravity Thinking Limited and Andrew Roberts, the tribunal recorded that any claims made by the Claimant under the data protection legislation were dismissed under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 following a withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant. The judgment states that the dismissal was made because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction under the data protection legislation.
The judgment is limited to that procedural disposal and does not determine the remaining claims. It states that the remaining claims would proceed to a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim under the data protection legislation was dismissed under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 following withdrawal by the Claimant. The tribunal noted it did not have jurisdiction under the data protection legislation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.