Case 2500950/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Keating v Aktrion Automotive [first respondent] Quality Response Limited [second respondent] Heard: Remotely by telephone — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500950/2020
- Decision date
- 21 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Keating
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote telephone preliminary hearing before Employment Judge S Shore on 21 May 2021. The claimant, Mrs T Keating, appeared in person. The first respondent was represented by Mr I Shahid, Legal Director, and the second respondent by Ms L South, HR Manager.
The tribunal recorded that the hearing was remote and that the parties did not object to it being heard remotely because it was not practicable to hold a face-to-face hearing during the Covid-19 pandemic. The written judgment does not set out any substantive liability findings on the employment claims.
The only order recorded is that the second respondent, Quality Response Limited, is removed as a party to the proceedings. No monetary remedy, liability determination, or other substantive disposal is stated in the supplied judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment is a telephone preliminary hearing and records only that the second respondent, Quality Response Limited, was removed as a party to the proceedings. No substantive tribunal claim was adjudicated in the supplied text. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.