Case 6002754/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Wendy Jones v Educate U West Sussex Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002754/2023
- Decision date
- 14 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Wendy Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Southampton on 31 March 2025 before Employment Judge Rayner Representation. The claimant was Wendy Jones, represented by her husband, and the respondent was Educate U West Sussex Ltd, represented by counsel.
The written judgment records that case number 6002754/2023 was dismissed in its entirety on withdrawal by the Claimant. No reasons were provided because the judgment was given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not include any separate findings on the merits of the claims.
On the information in the judgment and the associated listing, the case involved unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims, but the tribunal made no substantive liability or remedy award. The record therefore shows a withdrawal outcome rather than a merits determination.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment records that the claim number was dismissed in its entirety on withdrawal by the Claimant. It does not set out a separate merits decision on the disability discrimination allegation. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment records that the claim number was dismissed in its entirety on withdrawal by the Claimant. No separate substantive finding on unfair dismissal is given. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.