Case 3202191/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Bantar v East London NHS Foundation Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202191/2018
- Decision date
- 28 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Bantar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a rule 52 judgment on withdrawal. It records that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant.
The judgment does not set out any findings on the merits of the pleaded claims, does not identify the underlying legal issues in its text, and does not make any award or other substantive remedy order.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The withdrawal judgment does not enumerate the underlying causes of action. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The withdrawal judgment does not enumerate the underlying causes of action. This entry reflects the gov.uk listing category of interim relief, which is not separately available in the locked taxonomy. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The withdrawal judgment does not enumerate the underlying causes of action. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing category of public interest disclosure. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The withdrawal judgment does not enumerate the underlying causes of action. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The withdrawal judgment does not enumerate the underlying causes of action. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The withdrawal judgment does not enumerate the underlying causes of action. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. | Withdrawn |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.