Case 3334953/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E El-Bashir v John Lewis plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 3334953/2018
- Decision date
- 16 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E El-Bashir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that claims withdrawn before the hearing were dismissed on withdrawal. It also refused the claimant's implicit application to amend the claim form to add a fresh breach of contract claim.
The pleaded breach of contract complaint was found not well-founded. Because there was no successful claim, the claimant's claim for an enhancement under Employment Act 2002, s38 also failed, and the proceedings as a whole were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that claims withdrawn before the hearing are dismissed on withdrawal, but the extracted judgment text does not identify the claim types. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The pleaded complaint of breach of contract was found not well-founded. An implicit application to amend to add a fresh breach of contract claim was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's claim for an enhancement under Employment Act 2002, s38 failed in the absence of a successful claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Act 2002, s38
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.