Case 4100031/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Scott v PJGH Ltd t/a Papa Johns — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100031/2020
- Decision date
- 10 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Scott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the telephone preliminary hearing on 15 July 2020, Employment Judge M Robison dealt with the claimant's sex discrimination and equal pay claims. After the tribunal had previously asked her to clarify whether she intended to pursue sex discrimination and equal pay arguments based on like work or work of equal value, Ms Scott said at the outset of the hearing that she had decided to withdraw both claims. The judgment records that those claims were withdrawn and dismissed.
The tribunal did not determine the merits of the withdrawn claims. It recorded that the case would proceed to a three-day in-person final hearing on the remaining claims relating to unfair constructive dismissal, notice pay, failure to provide particulars of employment, and alleged breaches of the Working Time Regulations. The respondent's position that the claimant had been self-employed rather than employed was noted as disputed and left for determination at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | At the outset of the preliminary hearing, the claimant said she had decided to withdraw her sex discrimination claim. The judgment records that the sex discrimination claim was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Equal pay | The claimant also withdrew the equal pay claim after the tribunal sought clarification of whether she was pursuing equal work or work of equal value arguments. The judgment records that the equal pay claim was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.