Case 3201381/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Di Pietro v The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201381/2019
- Decision date
- 22 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Di Pietro
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a judgment on withdrawal under rule 52. It records that Miss S Di Pietro was the claimant and The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc was the respondent.
The tribunal dismissed the proceedings following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. No findings on liability or remedy were made in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The listed claim categories include unfair dismissal, but the judgment does not adjudicate individual claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The listed claim categories include disability discrimination, but the judgment does not adjudicate individual claims. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The listed claim categories include maternity and pregnancy rights, but the judgment does not adjudicate individual claims. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The listed claim categories include unlawful deduction from wages, but the judgment does not adjudicate individual claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52
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.