Case 2304448/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Lodh v Mission Care Management Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304448/2019
- Decision date
- 30 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Lodh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 52 judgment dated 30 November 2022 in which Employment Judge Siddall recorded that the claimant, Mrs A Lodh, had brought claims against Mission Care Management Limited for direct and indirect age discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages, holiday pay, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The judgment does not decide the merits of the unfair dismissal or wrongful dismissal claims; it states that those claims would proceed to hearing.
The claims for direct and indirect age discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay were dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not contain substantive findings on liability for those withdrawn claims and gives no award of compensation or other remedy.
No lay members are listed in the judgment, and no legal test is discussed. The only recorded outcome is procedural: withdrawal of part of the claim and continuation of the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment records that the claimant's claims for direct and indirect age discrimination were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claim for unlawful deduction from wages was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the claim for holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 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.