Case 2411600/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Graham First v Integra People Limited Second Respondent: Vitax Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2411600/2019
- Decision date
- 25 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Graham First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that all of the claimant's claims against the first respondent were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. The judgment does not identify those claims individually, and no monetary award was made on that basis.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim against the second respondent was dismissed following withdrawal, with the tribunal noting that the claimant did not have the two years' service needed to bring such a claim. The breach of contract claim against the second respondent was also dismissed following withdrawal.
The claimant's remaining sex discrimination claims under sections 13 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010 were not finally determined in this judgment. They were listed to proceed to a preliminary hearing on 28 April 2020 to determine her employment status and whether she was entitled to bring those claims against the second respondent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | All of the claimant's claims against the first respondent were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant; the judgment does not itemise those claims individually. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed against the second respondent following withdrawal by the claimant. The tribunal also noted that the claimant did not have the two years' service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed against the second respondent following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.