Case 3203335/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Karen Griffiths v Tracey Emin T/A Tracey Emin Studio — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203335/2021
- Decision date
- 28 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Members
- Panel members
- Mr K Sleeth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Karen Griffiths
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 28 April 2022, at East London Hearing Centre by Cloud Video Platform, Employment Judge Hallen sat with Mr K Sleeth. The claimant was Mrs Karen Griffiths and the respondent was Tracey Emin T/A Tracey Emin Studio. The hearing was remote, no face-to-face hearing was held, and the judgment records that the remote format was not objected to by the parties.
The written judgment contains no merits findings on the underlying unfair dismissal or disability discrimination issues. Its only substantive disposal is that the claim was dismissed by reason of withdrawal, and the tribunal made no order as to costs. No monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment does not set out separate merits findings for this claim. The final order records that the claim was dismissed by reason of withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Other | The written judgment does not identify this issue separately. It is included because the case context indicates a time-limits issue, and the final order records dismissal by reason of withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment does not set out the underlying factual basis for this claim. The final order records dismissal by reason of withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.