Case 3323406/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr S Margo - Counsel — 2020
- Case reference
- 3323406/2019
- Decision date
- 2 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss L Giffard brought an unfair dismissal claim against British Airways Plc arising from her dismissal for unsatisfactory attendance. The judgment records that the claim form also referred to an unparticularised request for unpaid payments, but that was not accepted as a claim. The case was listed for a full merits hearing at Watford on 8 July 2020 before Employment Judge Smail.
By email dated 3 June 2020, the claimant stated that she wished to withdraw her unfair dismissal application because of the Covid-19 outbreak, the pressure on the legal team she believed was assisting her, and her own inability to represent herself. Applying Campbell v OCS Group UK Limited and Rule 51, the tribunal found that this was a clear and unambiguous withdrawal. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed upon withdrawal, and the merits were not determined.
The respondent applied for costs and sought a brief fee of £2,500. The tribunal refused the application. It accepted that there was force in the respondent’s position, but found that the claimant had been told by the tribunal to attend, was out of her depth in handling the case, and had limited means. The judge said that, if costs had been awarded, £750 would have been a more appropriate brief fee than the £2,500 sought.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal claim by email dated 3 June 2020; the tribunal dismissed it upon withdrawal under Rule 51. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Campbell v OCS Group UK Limited
- Rule 51
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.