Case 3319541/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Davies v VAKS Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3319541/2019
- Decision date
- 17 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Bury St Edmunds on 17 February 2020, Employment Judge M Warren recorded that the parties had agreed terms of settlement and that the claimant had withdrawn her claims. The judgment states that the claimant's claims were dismissed.
The judgment contains no substantive liability findings, no separate reasons on any individual claim, and no monetary award. It is a procedural disposal following settlement and withdrawal rather than a merits decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the parties agreed terms of settlement and the claimant withdrew her claims; the tribunal then dismissed the claims. It does not set out a separate finding for this head of claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the parties agreed terms of settlement and the claimant withdrew her claims; the tribunal then dismissed the claims. It does not set out a separate finding for this head of claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the parties agreed terms of settlement and the claimant withdrew her claims; the tribunal then dismissed the claims. It does not set out a separate finding for this head of claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the parties agreed terms of settlement and the claimant withdrew her claims; the tribunal then dismissed the claims. It does not set out a separate finding for this head of claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.