Case 1304661/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Jennings v George Birchall Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1304661/2018
- Decision date
- 16 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Jennings
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Woffenden issued this rule 52 judgment on 16 December 2021. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of notice pay and unfair dismissal against the first respondent, George Birchall Ltd (in voluntary liquidation), were dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal of those complaints.
The judgment also records that the claimant's claim against the second respondent, George Birchall Group Management Ltd (in voluntary liquidation), was dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal. No substantive findings on liability were made in this judgment because the relevant claims were withdrawn before determination.
The tribunal noted that the claimant's remaining claim for a protective award would proceed. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the complaint of notice pay against the first respondent was dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint against the first respondent was dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's claim against the second respondent was dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant; the extracted text does not specify the underlying cause of action. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.