Case 6014716/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Y Xu v The Squa.re Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014716/2024
- Decision date
- 5 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Isaacson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Y Xu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of negligence and personal injury because it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear those claims. It therefore made no findings on the merits of those complaints.
The claimant's complaint about failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars also failed. The tribunal said that this was not a standalone claim in these proceedings.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the claim so as to bring a breach of contract claim. The judgment does not record any award or remedy, and no breach of contract claim was determined on its merits.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant's complaints of negligence and personal injury were dismissed because the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's claim for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars failed because the tribunal said it was not a standalone claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to bring a breach of contract claim; the judgment does not determine the merits of any such claim. | Other | — | — |
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.