Case 3303529/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Drake (in person) For the v Mr Kerr (consultant) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303529/2020
- Decision date
- 29 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Drake (in person) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant, Ms Drake, brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Churchill Contract Services Limited. The case was heard at Watford by hybrid hearing on 27 and 28 June 2022 before Employment Judge Cowen, with Ms Drake appearing in person and Mr Kerr appearing for the respondent as a consultant.
The written judgment states that, for the reasons given in the oral judgment at the hearing, the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed. The extracted text does not set out those oral reasons, so no further factual findings or legal analysis can be reliably recorded from the written judgment text alone.
No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment. The judgment is limited to dismissal of the unfair dismissal claim and does not record any separate remedy or compensation figure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.