Case 2416718/2019 · Employment Tribunal
X v Equiniti Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2416718/2019
- Decision date
- 8 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
X
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant withdrew the claim. Following that withdrawal, the Employment Tribunal dismissed the proceedings.
No findings on liability, remedy, or the substance of the claims are set out in the judgment. No monetary award or remedy breakdown is stated.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The short judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; the claim type is taken from the case listing because the judgment text does not set out individual claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The short judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; the claim type is taken from the case listing because the judgment text does not set out individual claims. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The short judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; the claim type is taken from the case listing because the judgment text does not set out individual claims. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The short judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; the claim type is taken from the case listing because the judgment text does not set out individual claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.