Case 3332935/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P McLachlan, FRU For the v Mr J Brotherton, Solicitor — 2019
- Case reference
- 3332935/2018
- Decision date
- 23 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Sutton, Mrs I Sood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P McLachlan, FRU For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written judgment records that Ms I Topolewicz's claim under s.45A Employment Rights Act 1996, which concerned detriments said to arise from a complaint of infringement of the Working Time Regulations, failed and was dismissed. The hearing was held at Watford on 5 and 6 December 2019 before Employment Judge R Lewis, with lay members Mr D Sutton and Mrs I Sood.
The judgment also states that all other claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The written record does not set out separate written reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing, so the decision contains only the dispositive outcomes. No monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Claim under s.45A Employment Rights Act 1996, concerning detriments on the ground of a complaint of infringement of the Working Time Regulations, was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | All other claims were dismissed on withdrawal; the written record does not specify the individual statutory bases of those 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 | Withdrawn | — | — |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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.