Case 3321574/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr E Aston, solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 3321574/2019
- Decision date
- 28 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a telephone hearing in Watford on 28 May 2020 before Employment Judge R Lewis, the parties agreed that the claimant's claims would be dismissed on withdrawal. The written judgment records only that, by consent, the claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal and does not set out any findings on the merits of the pleaded claims.
The order was procedural only. No liability findings or remedy figures were recorded, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless a request was made within 14 days of the sending of the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that, by consent, the claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The individual claim type is taken from the case listing supplied in the case context because the written judgment does not enumerate the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that, by consent, the claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The individual claim type is taken from the case listing supplied in the case context because the written judgment does not enumerate the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that, by consent, the claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The individual claim type is taken from the case listing supplied in the case context because the written judgment does not enumerate the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that, by consent, the claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The individual claim type is taken from the case listing supplied in the case context because the written judgment does not enumerate the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.