Case 1304218/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1304218/2020
- Decision date
- 23 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at a CVP hearing on 22 and 23 December 2020 before Employment Judge Hughes. It first dismissed the claim against the second respondent because the first respondent was the claimant's employer. No separate remedy or liability finding was recorded against the second respondent beyond that dismissal.
The claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim, recording that it was not well-founded. The breach of contract claim, which related to notice pay, was likewise found not well-founded and dismissed.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant's claim for constructive unfair dismissal was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's breach of contract claim for notice pay was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.