Case 4123686/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4123686/2018 Mr C Oliveira v Carr Gomm — 2019
- Case reference
- 4123686/2018
- Decision date
- 12 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michelle Sutherland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4123686/2018 Mr C Oliveira
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr C Oliveira, brought direct and indirect sex discrimination claims against Carr Gomm. The tribunal recorded that both claims had been withdrawn by the claimant.
The judgment states that the direct sex discrimination claim and the indirect sex discrimination claim were dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. No substantive liability findings or remedy assessment are recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The direct sex discrimination claim was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The indirect sex discrimination claim was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.