Case 3310850/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Frane, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3310850/2019
- Decision date
- 18 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Frane, Solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a Preliminary Hearing in Norwich on 5 November 2019, Employment Judge Postle recorded that the Claimant's Equality Act 2010 claim for race discrimination and his claim for ordinary unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 were withdrawn. The written judgment states that those claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant.
The same order also covered the Claimant's claims for accrued holiday pay and notice pay, which were likewise dismissed upon withdrawal. No substantive findings were made on liability, and the judgment does not record any remedy or award.
The record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, so written reasons were not provided unless requested within 14 days. No legal test or panel members are identified in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant following a Preliminary Hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant following a Preliminary Hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Accrued holiday pay claim dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | 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.