Case 3327695/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Phillips v Brundall Care Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3327695/2019
- Decision date
- 1 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Members
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Mrs Prettyman, Ms Bray
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs S Phillips
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Norwich by CVP on 29 and 30 November and 1 December 2021 before Employment Judge M Warren, with Mrs Prettyman and Ms Bray as members. The claimant was Mrs S Phillips and the respondents were Brundall Care Limited and Katerina Christophi.
The judgment records that the claimant’s claims were dismissed because they had been withdrawn after confidential terms of settlement had been agreed. No findings on liability, remedy, or the underlying merits of the unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, or breach of contract claims are recorded in the judgment text provided.
Accordingly, the published decision is a disposal by withdrawal following settlement, rather than a determination of the substantive claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was withdrawn after confidential settlement terms were agreed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the claim was withdrawn after confidential settlement terms were agreed. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the claim was withdrawn after confidential settlement terms were agreed. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.