Case 3334770/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Millicent Clarke v London Borough of Brent Heard By: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 3334770/2018
- Decision date
- 29 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Craft Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Millicent Clarke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Ms Millicent Clarke, brought claims of disability discrimination, victimisation and redundancy payment, together with an unfair dismissal claim against the London Borough of Brent. At the hearing on 21 to 24 June 2021 before Employment Judge Craft, the tribunal recorded that the discrimination, victimisation and redundancy payment claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant.
The tribunal also refused the Claimant's application to amend her claim to include unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract. No determination on the merits of that proposed amendment was made.
On the remaining unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the Claimant was fairly dismissed by the Respondent and dismissed that claim. No remedy or monetary award was recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the Claimant was fairly dismissed by the Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.