Case 3305180/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Ashbrook v CA Technologies R&D Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3305180/2018
- Decision date
- 26 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Ashbrook
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Reading on 26 February 2019, Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto recorded a withdrawal judgment in the claim brought by Ms L Ashbrook against CA Technologies R&D Limited. The judgment states that the claimant withdrew the sex discrimination complaint and the detriment complaints brought pursuant to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, identified in the claim form at paragraphs 14(i) and 14(j).
Because those complaints were withdrawn, the tribunal dismissed them under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records no findings on the merits of the allegations and no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The claimant withdrew this complaint; the tribunal dismissed it under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to the claimant's detriment claims under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 at paragraphs 14(i) and 14(j) of the claim form; they were withdrawn and dismissed under rule 52. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.