Case 2305038/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Mulford v Parkersteel Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305038/2020
- Decision date
- 21 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Mulford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 21 April 2022 Employment Judge Abbott issued a judgment on withdrawal under rule 52. The claimant, Miss K Mulford, withdrew four complaints, and the tribunal dismissed them: detriment and/or dismissal for health and safety reasons under s.44 and/or s.100 ERA 1996, failure to consult about a proposed transfer under the TUPE Regulations, perceived disability discrimination, and victimisation.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claims, as identified in the case management order of the same date, would proceed. No merits findings or monetary remedy were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint of detriment and/or dismissal for health and safety reasons under s.44 and/or s.100 ERA 1996; dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Failure to consult about a proposed transfer under the TUPE Regulations; dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Perceived disability discrimination; dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation; dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal. | 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.