Case 3335367/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Hart, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3335367/2018
- Decision date
- 6 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss A Hart, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was listed before Employment Judge Postle at Norwich on 6 January 2020. The only substantive disposal recorded in the judgment is that the parties reached agreement via Acas on a COT3 basis.
Following that agreement, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims against the respondent were dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not contain findings on the factual merits of the dispute, liability, or remedy, and it records no monetary award.
Because the case was disposed of by settlement and withdrawal, there are no tribunal findings on the unfair dismissal or disability discrimination issues beyond the procedural disposal. The judgment therefore provides no separate legal reasoning or remedies analysis.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the parties reached agreement via Acas (COT3) and that the claimant's claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the parties reached agreement via Acas (COT3) and that the claimant's claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.