Case 1303385/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J F White v Bodmin Autos Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1303385/2024
- Decision date
- 25 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J F White
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Birmingham by CVP on 8 January 2024, Employment Judge Codd dealt with Mr J F White's claims against Bodmin Autos Ltd under section 11 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 4 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The judgment records that the claimant was represented by Mr A Clarke and the respondent by Ms Younis of Peninsula.
The tribunal struck out both claims under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. No substantive findings on liability are recorded in the written judgment beyond that strike-out decision.
The note to the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim under section 11 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The claim under Regulation 4 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
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.