Case 2303164/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Singh, Solicitor For the v Mr A Peters, Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303164/2021
- Decision date
- 8 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Singh, Solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Morton sitting alone at London South on 8 July 2022. The claimant, Ms A Gabor, was represented by Mr P Singh and the respondent, Good Food Wines Limited, was represented by Mr A Peters.
The judgment records three claims: race discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, and unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal did not determine the claims on their merits. Instead, it recorded that each claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
No findings were made on liability and no remedy was awarded. The judgment contains no separate compensation, basic award, interest, or other monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment describes this as indirect sex discrimination and says the claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.