Case 3312746/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A v L Wing and 1 Kett Autoparts (Anglia) Limited 2 Mr B Kett 3 Mr R Gee Held by telephone on 3 August 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312746/2020
- Decision date
- 3 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein Statement
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was held by telephone on 3 August 2021 before Employment Judge Kurrein. The claimant, Ms A L Wing, was represented by Miss G Pollock; the first respondent by Miss Bewley; and respondents 2 and 3 by Miss G Roberts. The judge recorded that the hearing was remote because a face-to-face hearing was not practicable and the issues could be determined in a telephone hearing.
The written judgment states that the claimant's claims against the second and third respondents were struck out as misconceived. The extract does not identify the underlying claim type for those struck-out claims. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment. The notes state that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written record does not identify the underlying claim type; it only records that the claims against respondents 2 and 3 were struck out as misconceived. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.