Case 2504246/2019 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Ms L Nash - Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 2504246/2019
- Decision date
- 12 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- North Shields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing heard at North Shields on 12 February 2020 before Employment Judge A M Buchanan sitting alone. The claimant did not attend; the respondent was represented by Ms L Nash, solicitor.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claims advanced by the claimant for breach of contract, assault, falsifying documentation to cover up grievance, and breach of human rights. Those claims were therefore dismissed. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons was recorded within the judgment note.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider this claim at a public preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the assault claim at a public preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim described as falsifying documentation to cover up grievance at a public preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the breach of human rights claim at a public preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.