Case 2601938/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Robinson, Consultant, and the Claimant For the v Mrs S Arden, Director — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601938/2020
- Decision date
- 10 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Robinson, Consultant, and the Claimant For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a closed telephone preliminary hearing on 10 September 2020 before Employment Judge P Britton sitting alone in Nottingham, the tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The same judgment also recorded that the disability discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The reasons note that, after consideration of the issues and the documents available, and following discussion with the parties, the remaining unlawful deduction from wages claim was stayed for 28 days pending possible settlement. The claimant was to confirm within that period whether the claim was withdrawn as a consequence of settlement.
The judgment does not determine the merits of the stayed wages claim and records no monetary award. No legal test is identified in the short reasons, and no findings are made beyond the withdrawal of the two dismissed claims and the interim stay on the remaining claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal at the closed telephone preliminary hearing on 10 September 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal at the closed telephone preliminary hearing on 10 September 2020. The judgment describes this as a disability discrimination claim under the Equality Act, as written in the record. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.