Case 3314628/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Pettitt v ISS Facilities Management Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314628/2020
- Decision date
- 14 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Pettitt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 13 September 2022 at Watford, Employment Judge Shore considered Mrs A Pettitt’s race discrimination and unfair dismissal claims against ISS Facilities Management Limited. The race discrimination claims were dismissed in their entirety upon withdrawal.
The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was held to have little reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal ordered that it could proceed to the final hearing only if the claimant paid a £150 deposit, and noted that a separate deposit order had been prepared.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claims were dismissed in their entirety upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 claim was found to have little reasonable prospect of success and was allowed to proceed to the final hearing only on condition that the claimant paid a £150 deposit. | Other | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.