Case 3303343/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Pozorska v And Calber Facilities Management Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303343/2020
- Decision date
- 29 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Pozorska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Vowles made a rule 52 judgment recording that the claimant withdrew four claims. Those withdrawn claims were automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, a claim under Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999, and detriments contrary to section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal dismissed those four claims as withdrawn. No findings were made on their substantive merits and no monetary award was recorded in this judgment.
The claimant's remaining unfair dismissal claim under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not affected by the judgment and was to proceed to a full merits hearing on a date yet to be fixed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant under rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant under rule 52. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | Claim under Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant under rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim contrary to section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant under rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.