Case 1306755/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Logan (the claimant’s mother) For the v Mr C Price — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306755/2019
- Decision date
- 11 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Logan (the claimant’s mother) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a final merits hearing before Employment Judge Perry sitting alone on 11 September 2020. The case was listed as Mr Jamal Logan v Water Spark Property Services Limited and Water Spark Property Services (Midlands) Limited, and the hearing record shows the claimant was represented by his mother, Mrs M Logan, and the respondents by Mr C Price counsel.
The judgment was made by consent rather than after findings on the underlying wages claim. The tribunal recorded that Water Spark Property Services Limited, the first respondent, had been dissolved, and ordered that the claim against it be dismissed. The judgment does not record any substantive determination of liability for unlawful deduction from wages.
The claimant and the second respondent had agreed terms of settlement. The tribunal ordered that the claim be stayed until 4:00pm on 2 October 2020 so that the settlement terms could be put into effect. The order further provided that, unless either party applied before the expiry of the stay, the claimant's claims would be dismissed on withdrawal with no order as to costs.
No monetary award was recorded in the judgment, and no remedy was assessed by the tribunal. The case therefore appears in the record as a consent disposal following settlement terms, together with dismissal of the dissolved first respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the claim against the first respondent was dismissed because Water Spark Property Services Limited had been dissolved. As to the second respondent, the parties had agreed settlement terms and asked for a stay so those terms could be implemented, with the claimant's claims to be dismissed on withdrawal if no application was made before expiry of the stay. | Settled | — | — |
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.