Case 3333447/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Watson v University of Surrey — 2019
- Case reference
- 3333447/2018
- Decision date
- 8 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Watson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Reading on 8 November 2019, before Employment Judge Anstis sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims of indirect discrimination, breach of personal data, and detriment, described as whether in relation to public interest disclosures or victimisation, in relation to the 2015 Aurora Leadership for Women Training programme were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
The judgment states that all other claims continued. It records no merits findings, no legal tests, no lay panel members, and no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the claimant's claim of indirect discrimination in relation to the 2015 Aurora Leadership for Women Training programme was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The judgment does not identify the protected characteristic. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the claimant's claim of breach of personal data in relation to the 2015 Aurora Leadership for Women Training programme was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the claimant's detriment claim, described as whether in relation to public interest disclosures or victimisation, in relation to the 2015 Aurora Leadership for Women Training programme was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.