Case 6007244/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Larisa Orlova v Kingston and Richmond NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007244/2024
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Larisa Orlova
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn case 6007244/2024, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action for that case number in this extract, so it is recorded here as an unspecified claim withdrawn before determination.
In case 6007436/2024, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of discrimination pursuant to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, unlawful deduction of wages, and holiday pay were also dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment further states that the claimant's other complaints in 6007436/2024 remained outstanding and were not determined in this decision. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records only that case number 6007244/2024 was dismissed on withdrawal; it does not specify the underlying complaint type in this extract. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of discrimination pursuant to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in case number 6007436/2024 was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction of wages in case number 6007436/2024 was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint in relation to holiday pay in case number 6007436/2024 was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.