Case 2304687/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304687/2019
- Decision date
- 31 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 31 July 2020 at London South Employment Tribunal, before Employment Judge Hyams-Parish sitting alone, the Tribunal recorded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims brought under case number 2304687/2019. The written judgment states that the claims were therefore dismissed.
The written record does not set out the substantive facts of the dispute or any merits findings. It is limited to the jurisdictional disposal and the formal dismissal order.
The judgment notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No separate written reasons are included in the published record.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment states that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims brought under this case number and that they were therefore dismissed. The claim type is inferred from the published case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment states that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims brought under this case number and that they were therefore dismissed. The claim type is inferred from the published case listing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment states that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims brought under this case number and that they were therefore dismissed. The claim type is inferred from the published case listing. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment states that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims brought under this case number and that they were therefore dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.