Case 2301770/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Harrison Catering Services Ltd — 2017
- Case reference
- 2301770/2017
- Decision date
- 7 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Preliminary
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 7 September 2017 before Employment Judge K Andrews, sitting alone by telephone, the tribunal recorded that the disability discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not contain any merits findings on that claim, only the procedural disposal.
The note of case management discussion records the remaining claim as unfair dismissal. The respondent admitted dismissal but said the reason was primarily conduct, arising from an accumulation of disciplinary warnings, or alternatively capability. The claimant said there was no potentially fair reason for dismissal, that a new manager disliked her and had manufactured a case against her, and that the previous final written warning had not been given in good faith.
The tribunal listed the issues for the later hearing and noted that, if there was a potentially fair reason for the dismissal, the issues under each heading were non-controversial. It also directed that the merits hearing would take place on 12 March 2018 and noted that the listing allowed for liability and general remedy issues, including Polkey, contributory fault and application of the ACAS code.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the disability discrimination claim was 'dismissed on withdrawal' at the preliminary hearing on 7 September 2017; no merits determination was made. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |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.