Case 3201252/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Jade Brown v Careworld London Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201252/2019
- Decision date
- 12 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Jade Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment at the East London Hearing Centre on 12 August 2019 before Employment Judge Burgher. The judgment records that, pursuant to Rule 64 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the parties had agreed terms of settlement.
The tribunal did not make findings on the merits of the dispute. Instead, it recorded that the claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal. No remedy figures, liability findings, or legal test analysis are set out in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Consent judgment states the parties agreed terms of settlement and that the claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal; no separate merits findings or split remedy were recorded. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Consent judgment states the parties agreed terms of settlement and that the claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal; no separate merits findings or split remedy were recorded. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Consent judgment states the parties agreed terms of settlement and that the claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal; no separate merits findings or split remedy were recorded. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.