Case 2416753/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Edmondson v Adnan Ashraf and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 2416753/2018
- Decision date
- 7 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs S Edmondson
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing the preliminary hearing on 28 March 2019, the claimant emailed the Tribunal on 8 May 2019 stating that she wished to have Katherine Zhao and Suresh Balasubrahaniam removed as respondents. The Tribunal treated that email as a withdrawal of the claims against Katherine Zhao and, pursuant to rule 52, dismissed those claims. Katherine Zhao was removed as a respondent to the claims.
The Tribunal noted that Suresh Balasubrahaniam had not been named as an individual respondent on the claim form, had not been validly served, and had never in fact been a respondent to the proceedings. The case therefore continued solely against Adnan Ashraf and was listed to be heard on 23 July 2019 as previously notified.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying claim type. The Tribunal treated the claimant's email of 8 May 2019 as a withdrawal of the claims against Katherine Zhao and dismissed those claims under rule 52; the proceedings continued against Adnan Ashraf. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.