Case 3303437/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Merten C1 3303437/2021; Mr R Merten C2 3303438/2021; Mr O Merten C3 3303439/2021. v Pristine Specialist Cleaning Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303437/2021
- Decision date
- 5 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Merten C1 3303437/2021; Mr R Merten C2 3303438/2021; Mr O Merten C3 3303439/2021.
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing before Employment Judge Quill sitting alone at Watford on 5 October 2022, the claimants' representative confirmed that the unfair dismissal complaint for all three claimants was withdrawn. The representative also confirmed that no victimisation complaint was being pursued, and that no complaint of wrongful dismissal or age discrimination was pursued.
The judgment records that wrongful dismissal and age discrimination did not appear to be included in the claim form, and that an amendment request would probably have been necessary in any event. It therefore did not make any findings on the merits of those complaints.
The tribunal stated that any complaints of unfair dismissal, victimisation, wrongful dismissal or age discrimination were dismissed upon withdrawal. No legal test was applied, and no remedy or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | During the hearing, the claimant's representative confirmed that the unfair dismissal complaint for all three claimants was withdrawn; the judgment records it as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | During the hearing, the claimant's representative confirmed that no victimisation complaint was being pursued; the judgment records any such complaint as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | During the hearing, the claimant's representative confirmed that no wrongful dismissal complaint was being pursued; the judgment records it as dismissed upon withdrawal and notes it did not appear to be included on the claim form. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | During the hearing, the claimant's representative confirmed that no age discrimination complaint was being pursued; the judgment records it as dismissed upon withdrawal and notes it did not appear to be included on the claim form. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.