Case 6002771/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Goodchild v Clean to a T — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002771/2023
- Decision date
- 7 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Goodchild
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis remedy judgment was heard at Southampton on 19 July 2024 before Employment Judge Self sitting alone. The extracted text records that there was no attendance from the claimant, no response entered by the respondent, and that the claimant had not provided any Schedule of Loss.
On that basis, the tribunal dismissed all claims. The judgment does not set out separate claim-by-claim reasoning or record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed. The extracted text gives no separate reasoning for this claim beyond the general dismissal and records the claimant's non-attendance and failure to provide a Schedule of Loss. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed. The extracted text gives no separate reasoning for this claim beyond the general dismissal and records the claimant's non-attendance and failure to provide a Schedule of Loss. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed. The extracted text gives no separate reasoning for this claim beyond the general dismissal and records the claimant's non-attendance and failure to provide a Schedule of Loss. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.