Case 1300367/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Oppong v Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Limited and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 1300367/2019
- Decision date
- 13 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr K Oppong
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Woffenden issued a rule 52 judgment on 13 September 2019 in case Nos. 1300367/2019 and 1300292/2019. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr K Oppong, had complaints of breach of contract/wrongful dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal against the second respondent, Eaton Limited.
Those complaints were dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant. The judgment does not contain any findings on the substantive merits of either complaint, and it does not record any compensatory or other monetary award.
No lay members are listed, and no legal tests are referred to in the extracted text. The only recorded procedural basis is that the claims were withdrawn and therefore dismissed under rule 52.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records the complaint as 'breach of contract/wrongful dismissal' and states it was dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant against the second respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records an 'automatically unfair dismissal' complaint against the second respondent and states it was dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.