Case 2305663/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Verlander v Clifton Court Development — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305663/2019
- Decision date
- 22 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Verlander
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 22 July 2020, Employment Judge Balogun Date recorded that the proceedings in Mrs S Verlander v Clifton Court Development were dismissed following an ACAS settlement. The judgment does not record any findings on liability, so it contains no merits conclusions for the listed breach of contract, disability discrimination, redundancy pay, or unfair dismissal claims.
No remedy, split award, or legal analysis is set out in the judgment text. The disposition is limited to dismissal of the proceedings after settlement, without further detail.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following an ACAS settlement and does not set out merits findings or a separate remedy for this claim. | Settled | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following an ACAS settlement and does not set out merits findings or a separate remedy for this claim. | Settled | Disability | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following an ACAS settlement and does not set out merits findings or a separate remedy for this claim. | Settled | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following an ACAS settlement and does not set out merits findings or a separate remedy for this claim. | Settled | — | — |
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.