Case 2401663/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Tatlow v David Mather Supplies Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401663/2020
- Decision date
- 4 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Tatlow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs N Tatlow brought two unfair dismissal claims against David Mather Supplies Limited. The hearing took place at Manchester on 1 and 2 November 2021 before Employment Judge Howard, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by a solicitor.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim under ss.104 and 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal. It also recorded that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim under ss.99 and 57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and was dismissed.
The respondent’s application for wasted costs against the claimant’s former legal representatives, Gowing Law Solicitors, succeeded in the amount of £1,607.36. The judgment does not set out any separate compensation award to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under ss.104 and 80F ERA 1996; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under ss.99 and 57A ERA 1996; failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,607
- across all upheld claims
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.