Case 2600035/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Cynthia Taylor v Stapleford Park Ltd and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600035/2023
- Decision date
- 21 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs Cynthia Taylor
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Ahmed sitting alone on 20 February 2024. The tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of the case. It dismissed the claim against the second respondent upon withdrawal.
The claimant also withdrew part of her application to amend the claim. That withdrawn part sought to add complaints of victimisation, a failure to be accompanied under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, and a statement of particulars under sections 1(1) and 4(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The remainder of the amendment application was allowed in part. The claimant was given leave to amend by adding allegations of constructive unfair dismissal, direct age discrimination, and harassment (age), with the relevant paragraphs identified in the amended particulars of claim. All other proposed amendments were refused. No liability findings or monetary remedy were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim against the second respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal at the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.