Case 1307557/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Dearn v Birmingham Garage and Industrial Doors Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1307557/2020
- Decision date
- 14 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Dearn
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the 14 July 2021 CVP hearing before Employment Judge Woffenden, the tribunal did not determine the unfair dismissal complaint on its merits. The judgment records that notices of rejection under Rule 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 would be sent to the claimant, so that complaint was rejected rather than upheld or dismissed after a substantive hearing.
The claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The written record does not set out substantive factual findings or any monetary award, and it states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Notices of rejection under Rule 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 were to be sent to the claimant; no merits determination is recorded. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.