Case 6001690/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Nechita v FP McCann Ltd Considered on the papers — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001690/2024
- Decision date
- 31 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Nechita
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 21 August 2024, Employment Judge Adkinson, sitting alone and considering the case on the papers, issued a judgment on withdrawal in Mr T Nechita v FP McCann Ltd. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had withdrawn three claims: detriment arising from making a protected disclosure, discrimination or harassment because of religion or belief, and discrimination because of pregnancy or maternity.
Those claims were dismissed because of the withdrawal. The judgment does not determine the merits of any of the withdrawn claims. It also states that the withdrawal does not affect any of the claimant’s other claims or any orders made in respect of them, which were to be heard and decided in the normal way.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as a claim for detriment arising from making a protected disclosure and says it is dismissed because the claimant withdrew it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment refers to this as discrimination or harassment because of religion or belief and dismisses it because the claimant withdrew it. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment dismisses this claim because the claimant withdrew the claim for discrimination because of pregnancy or maternity. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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.