Case 1300866/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Carlos Florez 1st v Onsite Property Management FM Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) 2nd Respondent: Scoteng Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300866/2022
- Decision date
- 29 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Carlos Florez 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 52 Employment Tribunal judgment dated 29 September 2022, issued by A Singh, Legal Officer. It records that the claims against the second respondent, Onsite Property Management FM Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation), had been withdrawn by the claimant and therefore stood dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The judgment contains no substantive findings on liability, no assessment of remedy, and no award. It states that the remainder of the claims were unaffected by this order; the final sentence appears to contain a typographical error by referring to the "first Claimant" rather than the first respondent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn by the claimant against the second respondent; the judgment records that these claims stand dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The text does not set out any substantive findings on the merits. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Withdrawn by the claimant against the second respondent; the judgment records that these claims stand dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The text does not set out any substantive findings on the merits. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.