Case 2601732/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Fadipe - counsel v Ms Crew - counsel — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601732/2022
- Decision date
- 6 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rachel Broughton
- Venue
- Midlands East
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Fadipe - counsel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 6 December 2022, Employment Judge Rachel Broughton heard the case at Midlands East Employment Tribunal via CVP. The extracted judgment records that Miss J L Smith's unfair dismissal claim against the First Respondent was presented in accordance with section 111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996, but it does not set out any merits finding or remedy for that claim.
The judgment also states that the claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. No monetary award, costs order, or other substantive remedy is recorded in the extracted text, and the written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim against the First Respondent was presented in accordance with section 111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996; no merits determination is stated in the text provided. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.