Case 2415203/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Weeden v Ms L Traynor t/a Gemini Grooming — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415203/2019
- Decision date
- 25 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Representatives
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Weeden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment before Employment Judge Holmes sitting remotely on 11 January 2021. The tribunal recorded that terms of settlement had been agreed between Miss K Weeden and Ms L Traynor t/a Gemini Grooming, and that those terms were to be carried out by 22 February 2021.
The proceedings were stayed for implementation of the settlement terms until 26 February 2021. The judgment records that, with the claimant's consent, the claims would stand dismissed upon withdrawal by her.
The judgment contains no findings on the merits of the underlying claims and no monetary award. It is limited to recording the settlement and the procedural stay pending completion of the agreed terms.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Consent judgment only; the tribunal recorded that settlement terms had been agreed and proceedings were stayed pending implementation, with the claims to stand dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Settled | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Consent judgment only; the tribunal recorded that settlement terms had been agreed and proceedings were stayed pending implementation, with the claims to stand dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Settled | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Consent judgment only; the tribunal recorded that settlement terms had been agreed and proceedings were stayed pending implementation, with the claims to stand dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Settled | — | — |
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.