Case 2600080/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Wood v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600080/2020
- Decision date
- 27 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a judgment on withdrawal under rule 52. It recorded that Miss R Wood was the claimant and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd was the respondent.
The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. It does not set out findings on the merits, identify any remedy, or record any legal test applied.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; the specific claim type is taken from the listing category rather than the judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; the specific discrimination claim is taken from the listing category rather than the judgment text. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; the specific discrimination claim is taken from the listing category rather than the judgment text. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; the specific claim type is taken from the listing category rather than the judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.