Case 2602616/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Hanna v Ducero Service Ltd and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602616/2019
- Decision date
- 27 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss B Hanna
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a short Rule 52 withdrawal judgment. It identifies the claimant, Miss B Hanna, and the respondents, Ducero Service Ltd, DHL International (UK) Ltd and Mr John Scouller.
The tribunal records that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. No findings of fact or law on the substantive complaints are set out in the judgment.
No remedy was awarded and the judgment does not record any hearing of the merits. The tribunal's order is limited to dismissal of the proceedings after withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. It does not distinguish individual claim outcomes. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. It does not set out any merits findings on the sex discrimination complaint. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. It does not contain a merits determination on unfair dismissal. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.