Case 3305605/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lomotey (Legal Executive). For the v Mrs C Illing (Solicitor). — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305605/2020
- Decision date
- 31 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lomotey (Legal Executive). For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held by CVP on 6 August 2021 before Employment Judge Cassel, the tribunal dealt with the first claimant’s complaints against Marshall Motor Group Ltd. The judgment states that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation brought by Ms F Rafiq, and that insofar as the tribunal had jurisdiction, the claims were dismissed.
The extracted text does not specify the protected characteristic or characteristics said to underlie the discrimination, harassment or victimisation complaints. It also does not contain any merits findings on the substantive allegations, only the jurisdictional ruling and dismissal outcome recorded for the first claimant’s complaints.
The judgment notes that orders for the hearing of the second claimant’s claims were contained in a separate document, so this decision disposes only of the first claimant’s complaints. No financial remedy is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear this complaint and, insofar as it had jurisdiction, the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear this complaint and, insofar as it had jurisdiction, the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers generically to 'unlawful discrimination' and does not identify the protected characteristic in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refers to harassment but does not identify the protected characteristic in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment refers to victimisation but does not identify the protected characteristic in the extracted text. | 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.