Case 3303845/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Unrepresented. For the v Mr P Nainthy, Solicitor. — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303845/2019
- Decision date
- 24 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mrs S Morgan, Ms S Laurence-Doig
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Unrepresented. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Bury St Edmunds on 21, 22 and 23 September 2020 before Employment Judge Cassel, sitting with Mrs S Morgan and Ms S Laurence-Doig. The written judgment is brief and records no merits findings or factual analysis beyond the operative disposal of the claims.
The judgment states that the claimant's claims of unlawful discrimination, unfair dismissal, unpaid holiday pay and breach of contract were dismissed upon withdrawal. No remedy was awarded and no substantive legal tests are set out in the written record. The record also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment says only 'unlawful discrimination' and does not specify the protected characteristic; it was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to unpaid holiday pay; the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed upon 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 | Withdrawn | — | — |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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.