Case 3316008/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Lainchbury v St Mary’s School Cambridge Damian Griffiths — 2026
- Case reference
- 3316008/2019
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Lainchbury
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge R Lewis issued a judgment dated 18 March 2020, sent to the parties on 3 April 2020, stating that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The extracted text does not record any hearing evidence, liability findings, or legal analysis on the merits of the case.
No remedy was awarded and the judgment contains no monetary figure. The disposal is purely procedural and the extracted text does not separate out any different outcome for the individual claims that were listed in the case.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The extracted judgment text records only that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. It does not set out merits findings or any separate disposal for this allegation. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Whistleblowing | The extracted judgment text records only that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. It does not set out merits findings or any separate disposal for this allegation. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment text records only that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. It does not set out merits findings or any separate disposal for this allegation. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.