Case 1305617/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Macmillan of Counsel For the v Mr S Bhoodhoo — 2020
- Case reference
- 1305617/2018
- Decision date
- 27 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Macmillan of Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis written record, dated 27 February 2020, records only the tribunal's refusal of the claimant's application for costs under Rule 76(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment is by Employment Judge Woffenden sitting at Birmingham, with representation noted for both parties.
The record does not set out reasons beyond the refusal itself, and it does not contain substantive findings on the underlying employment claims. It also does not record any monetary award or any split of remedy. The note states that written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days of sending of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The only determination in this written record is the claimant's application for costs under Rule 76(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, dated 18 July 2019. The tribunal refused the application. No substantive merits claim is decided in the supplied text. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 76(2) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.