Case 2317817/2010 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v IBM UK Ltd and IBM UK Holdings Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2317817/2010
- Decision date
- 11 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a short disposal order rather than a merits decision. It records that confidential settlement terms had been agreed between the parties, pursuant to which Mr FG Hurrell, Mr D Moule and Mrs SC Barr withdrew their claims in these proceedings.
On that basis, the Tribunal ordered that the proceedings be dismissed in respect of those claimants. The judgment does not set out the underlying allegations, any findings of fact, or any liability determination on the merits.
No remedy was awarded and no monetary figures are recorded. The order is signed by Regional Employment Judge Pirani and sent to the parties on 11 November 2019.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that confidential settlement terms had been agreed and that Mr FG Hurrell, Mr D Moule and Mrs SC Barr withdrew their claims in these proceedings. The Tribunal then dismissed the proceedings in respect of those claimants. No substantive merits findings are recorded. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records that confidential settlement terms had been agreed and that Mr FG Moule withdrew his claim in these proceedings. The Tribunal then dismissed the proceedings in respect of those claimants. No substantive merits findings are recorded. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records that confidential settlement terms had been agreed and that Mrs SC Barr withdrew her claim in these proceedings. The Tribunal then dismissed the proceedings in respect of those claimants. No substantive merits findings are recorded. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.