Case 2602208/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lolita Boiko First v MRN Recruitment Ltd (In Liquidation) Second Respondent: Capital Outsourcing Group Food Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602208/2019
- Decision date
- 19 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram
- Venue
- Lincoln
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Lolita Boiko First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Lincoln on 11 December 2019, Employment Judge Jeram sat alone. The claimant, Ms Lolita Boiko First, appeared in person. The first respondent did not attend, and the second respondent was represented by Ms Harkin, HR and Compliance Director.
The judgment records that the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, race discrimination, age discrimination, and holiday pay were dismissed on withdrawal. No substantive findings on liability were made, and the written record does not identify any remedy because the claims were withdrawn before determination.
The decision was dated 19 December 2019. The tribunal noted that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the usual tribunal practice.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.