Case 1400187/2022 · Employment Tribunal
- MR D STANTON/ MR R WALTERS FOR THE v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400187/2022
- Decision date
- 24 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
- MR D STANTON/ MR R WALTERS FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 4 October 2022, Employment Judge Cadney sitting alone at Bristol recorded a consent judgment in which the claims identified in the order were dismissed, while the remaining claims were to proceed to hearing under the accompanying case management order.
The tribunal dismissed all claims against SGTS Holdings Ltd and Mr D Stubbs on withdrawal. It also stated, for the avoidance of doubt, that the claims would proceed against SSGC Ltd, which was accepted as the correct respondent to the claims.
As to Mr Stanton, the tribunal noted that he was pursuing claim number 1400187/2022. Claims 1400570/2022 and 1400310/2022 were dismissed as against Mr Stanton only on withdrawal because they were duplicate claims. No substantive merits or monetary remedy were determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | All claims against SGTS Holdings Ltd and Mr D Stubbs were dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal recorded that the claims would proceed against SSGC Ltd, which was accepted to be the correct respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claims 1400570/2022 and 1400310/2022 were dismissed as against Mr Stanton only on withdrawal as duplicate claims. Mr Stanton was recorded as pursuing claim number 1400187/2022. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.