Case 2409371/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Vandersteen v Muir Group Housing Association Heard: by video — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409371/2022
- Decision date
- 13 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Vandersteen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss M Vandersteen's case against Muir Group Housing Association was heard by video on 10 February 2023 before Employment Judge S Jenkins, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr Taylor, solicitor. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant's claims because she had entered into a binding settlement agreement with the respondent in respect of them. It therefore struck out the claims and no monetary award is recorded. The record also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to the claimant's claims collectively and does not list the individual heads of claim in the body of the decision. This claim type is taken from the GOV.UK listing metadata supplied with the case. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the claimant had entered into a binding settlement agreement with the respondent in respect of the claims, and it struck the claim out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to the claimant's claims collectively and does not list the individual heads of claim in the body of the decision. This claim type and protected characteristic are taken from the GOV.UK listing metadata supplied with the case. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the claimant had entered into a binding settlement agreement with the respondent in respect of the claims, and it struck the claim out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to the claimant's claims collectively and does not list the individual heads of claim in the body of the decision. This claim type is taken from the GOV.UK listing metadata supplied with the case. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the claimant had entered into a binding settlement agreement with the respondent in respect of the claims, and it struck the claim out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.