Case 2303152/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Wyatt v Diasorin SpA UK Branch CASE MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION BY TELEPHONE/CVP VIDEO LINK — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303152/2019
- Decision date
- 31 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Wyatt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 31 July 2020, Regional Employment Judge Freer held a telephone/CVP case management discussion at London South for the purpose of offering judicial mediation. Both parties accepted the offer. The respondent confirmed that a person with full authority to settle would attend, and the judge recorded that the parties were expected to approach the mediation with compromise and meaningful engagement.
The order limited the documents for mediation to the claim form, response form, case management order and schedules of loss. The claimant was directed to provide an updated schedule of loss by 21 August 2020, the respondent to provide a counter-schedule by 18 September 2020, and draft general settlement terms by 16 October 2020. The judicial mediation was listed as a private preliminary hearing by CVP video link on 20 October 2020.
The order also recorded that the full hearing remained listed for four days beginning 30 November 2020 if mediation was unsuccessful, with bundle and witness statement directions adjusted for that contingency. This document contains no merits findings and does not determine liability, dismissal, discrimination, or remedy in the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This document is a case management discussion about judicial mediation and directions. It does not adjudicate the merits of any underlying claim, so no substantive claim outcome is recorded here. | Other | — | — |
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.