Case 3201253/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Chibuzor v Elior UK plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201253/2019
- Decision date
- 3 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Prichard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Chibuzor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on withdrawal. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had withdrawn the claim.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the proceedings following that withdrawal. The judgment does not set out factual findings, liability findings, or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states only that 'the claim' was withdrawn and the proceedings were dismissed. This claim classification is based on the gov.uk listing categories provided in context, not on detail within the judgment text itself. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states only that 'the claim' was withdrawn and the proceedings were dismissed. This claim classification is based on the gov.uk listing categories provided in context, not on detail within the judgment text itself. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states only that 'the claim' was withdrawn and the proceedings were dismissed. This claim classification is based on the gov.uk listing categories provided in context, not on detail within the judgment text itself. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states only that 'the claim' was withdrawn and the proceedings were dismissed. This claim classification is based on the gov.uk listing categories provided in context, not on detail within the judgment text itself. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.