Case 2503316/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Smith-Payne v Morrison Data Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2503316/2018
- Decision date
- 29 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Smith-Payne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant withdrew the claim. Following that withdrawal, the Employment Tribunal dismissed the proceedings under rule 52.
The judgment does not set out findings on the merits of the allegations, does not identify any remedy, and does not separately analyse the listing categories of disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, or unlawful deduction from wages.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the proceedings following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The listing categories indicate unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and unlawful deduction from wages, but the judgment text does not separately identify the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment dismisses the proceedings following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. Disability discrimination is taken from the listing category because the judgment itself does not separately identify the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the proceedings following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. Unlawful deduction from wages is taken from the listing category because the judgment itself does not separately identify the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.
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.