Case 3321366/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Hall v AstraZeneca UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3321366/2019
- Decision date
- 28 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Mrs C Hall brought proceedings against AstraZeneca under case number 3321366/2019. Employment Judge Smail dismissed the proceedings following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant.
The judgment does not set out any factual findings, merits reasoning, or remedy award. It records no monetary award and no determination of the substance of the supplied listing categories.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment only records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim; this claim type is identified from the supplied gov.uk listing category, not from reasons within the judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment only records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim; this claim type is identified from the supplied gov.uk listing category, not from reasons within the judgment text. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment only records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim; this claim type is identified from the supplied gov.uk listing category, not from reasons within the judgment text. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment only records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim; this claim type is identified from the supplied gov.uk listing category, not from reasons within the judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment only records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim; this claim type is identified from the supplied gov.uk listing category, not from reasons within the judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.