Case 2405643/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Bakalov v Nutrition Group plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405643/2019
- Decision date
- 9 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Bakalov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a short disposal judgment in case 2405643/2019 between Mr D Bakalov and Nutrition Group PLC. The tribunal recorded that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claims by the claimant. The written judgment does not set out the pleaded allegations, evidence, or any findings on liability.
No remedy was awarded and no legal tests are identified in the judgment. Because the judgment is limited to the withdrawal order, the claim types below are taken from the case listing context supplied for extraction rather than from any merits findings in the text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment itself only states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claims. This claim type is taken from the case listing context supplied for extraction because the written judgment does not identify the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment itself only states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claims. This claim type is taken from the case listing context supplied for extraction because the written judgment does not identify the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Other | The judgment itself only states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claims. This claim type is taken from the case listing context supplied for extraction because the written judgment does not identify the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment itself only states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claims. This claim type is taken from the case listing context supplied for extraction because the written judgment does not identify the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.