Case 3315314/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Anderson v CAE Crewing Services — 2022
- Case reference
- 3315314/2020
- Decision date
- 16 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms D Ballard, Mr J Appleton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Anderson brought claims against CAE Crewing Services Limited at Reading, heard on 3 to 6 May 2022 before Employment Judge Anstis, with Ms D Ballard and Mr J Appleton sitting as members. The written judgment records only that the claimant's claims were dismissed.
The extracted decision does not include written reasons for the dismissal. It states 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.
On the material available, the tribunal's disposition was therefore a full dismissal of the claims identified in the case listing, namely disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written record does not set out separate reasons or separate disposal for each claim; the case listing identifies a disability discrimination claim, and the judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written record does not set out separate reasons or separate disposal for each claim; the case listing identifies an unfair dismissal claim, and the judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed. | 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.