Case 2413682/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v TFS Buying Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413682/2020
- Decision date
- 1 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss A Cashin, and respondent, TFS Buying Ltd, came before Employment Judge Horne. Before the final hearing, the claimant confirmed that she did not object to her complaint of unfair dismissal being struck out. The judgment records that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because it was not actively pursued.
The claimant also said that she 'withdraws but does not discontinue' her complaint of misuse of CCTV. The tribunal interpreted that as maintaining a factual allegation that CCTV was misused, but not pursuing any separate legal complaint in the employment tribunal arising from that alleged fact. The judgment states that no action was taken on that factual allegation and that it would be for the tribunal at the final hearing to decide whether it was relevant to the issues it had to determine.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant confirmed that she did not object to the unfair dismissal complaint being struck out. The tribunal said the complaint was not actively pursued. The claimant also said she 'withdraws but does not discontinue' a complaint of misuse of CCTV, which the tribunal treated as a factual allegation rather than a separate legal complaint in the employment tribunal. | 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.