Case 2406364/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Ditta v Longfield Care Homes Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2406364/2020
- Decision date
- 18 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Ditta
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 5 October 2021 before Employment Judge Shotter, the tribunal recorded that the race discrimination claim and the detriment claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were dismissed on withdrawal. The respondent's application to strike out and/or for a deposit order was also dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal held that Mrs R Ditta had sufficient qualifying service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring a claim for constructive unfair dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of that Act. The remaining claims of constructive unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages were not determined at this stage and were to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the race discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to detriment brought under section 47B ERA 1996 and states that it was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.