Case 2404866/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Z Batan v Department for Work and Pensions — 2019
- Case reference
- 2404866/2019
- Decision date
- 14 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Z Batan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant withdrew the claim. Following that withdrawal, the proceedings were dismissed.
No substantive findings on the allegations, liability, legal tests, or remedy are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states only that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim. The listed category indicates age discrimination, but the judgment text does not separately adjudicate or particularise the claim. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states only that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim. The listed category indicates race discrimination, but the judgment text does not separately adjudicate or particularise the claim. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment states only that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim. The listed category indicates religion or belief discrimination, but the judgment text does not separately adjudicate or particularise the claim. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states only that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim. The listed category indicates sex discrimination, but the judgment text does not separately adjudicate or particularise the claim. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
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.