Case 2306123/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sally Geldard v Roost Restaurant Limited and 3 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2306123/2020
- Decision date
- 29 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Ms Sally Geldard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short judgment handed down on 29 July 2021 by Employment Judge Martin sitting by CVP. The Claimant, Ms Sally Geldard, appeared in person. The first Respondent was represented by Mr Foster, described as a director. There was no response or attendance by the first Respondent, and no attendance by the second and third Respondents.
The Tribunal recorded that the Claimant withdrew her claim against the first Respondent. On that basis, the Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claim against the first Respondent. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the merits of the withdrawn claim.
The Tribunal also found that the Claimant was not employed by the second or third Respondent. On that basis, the claims against the second and third Respondents were dismissed. The judgment does not record any remedy award or any findings on compensation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the Claimant withdrew her claim against the first Respondent and that the claim was dismissed. It also records that the Claimant was not employed by the second or third Respondent, so the claims against them were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the Claimant withdrew her claim against the first Respondent and that the claim was dismissed. It also records that the Claimant was not employed by the second or third Respondent, so the claims against them were 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.