Case 3200597/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S. Seels v National Westminster Bank plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200597/2019
- Decision date
- 19 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S. Seels
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Miss S. Seels brought claims against National Westminster Bank plc. It does not set out factual findings or reasons on the merits of the claims.
Employment Judge Massarella dismissed the Claimant's claims on withdrawal under Rule 52 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. No remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal under Rule 52. The specific claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category rather than being separately identified in the judgment text. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal under Rule 52. The specific claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category rather than being separately identified in the judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal under Rule 52. The specific claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category rather than being separately identified in the judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52, Sch.1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.