Case 3303972/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Wells v Ashley John Mitchell Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3303972/2022
- Decision date
- 8 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Wells
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment, heard by Employment Judge Anstis sitting alone at Reading by CVP on 13 December 2022, records only that the claimant's claims were dismissed. No written reasons were provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that written reasons would not be supplied unless requested within 14 days.
The extracted judgment text does not set out findings of fact, legal analysis, or any separate remedy assessment. It therefore does not identify which issues were accepted or rejected beyond the overall dismissal, and it does not contain a monetary award.
The claim types included in this extraction are taken from the accompanying gov.uk listing categories for the case, but the judgment itself does not list the individual causes of action. Accordingly, the outcome recorded here is limited to the tribunal's stated dismissal of the claimant's claims as a whole.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the judgment itself only states that the claimant's claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the judgment itself only states that the claimant's claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the judgment itself only states that the claimant's claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the judgment itself only states that the claimant's claims were dismissed. | 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.
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.