Case 2305763/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Kelly v Transport for London — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305763/2023
- Decision date
- 18 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MURDOCH Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Kelly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a withdrawal decision under rule 52. It records that Mrs G Kelly's complaints of direct age discrimination, direct disability discrimination, indirect age discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability were dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant.
No substantive findings of fact or liability reasoning are set out in the extracted text. The decision therefore records dismissal of the listed claims as a consequence of withdrawal, rather than any determination on the merits of the allegations.
No remedy is recorded in the judgment extract, and no monetary award is identified.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination complaint dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaint dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Indirect age discrimination complaint dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination complaint dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Discrimination arising from disability complaint dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.