Case 3200658/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C. Wade v Canary Wharf Management Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200658/2020
- Decision date
- 6 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C. Wade
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the East London Hearing Centre on 3 July 2020, before Employment Judge Massarella, the claimant was represented in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The judgment records that the claimant's claim of ordinary unfair (constructive) dismissal under s.94 ERA 1996 and his claim of sex discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed on withdrawal under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal therefore made no findings on the merits of either claim and recorded no remedy. The disposition was procedural only: both claims were withdrawn and dismissed accordingly.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claim was described in the judgment as 'ordinary unfair (constructive) dismissal (s.94 ERA 1996)' and was dismissed on withdrawal under Rule 52; no merits finding was made. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed on withdrawal under Rule 52; no merits finding was made. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
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.