Case 1400901/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Source PV Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400901/2020
- Decision date
- 4 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at Plymouth on 4 September 2020 recorded that terms of settlement had been agreed between the parties. The claimant was Mr Nathan McCluskey and the respondent was Source PV Limited. The respondent did not attend and no appearance was entered for it.
The judgment states that the claimant’s claims for a statutory redundancy payment, breach of contract in respect of notice pay, accrued but unpaid holiday pay, and unlawful deduction from wages were all dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The decision does not record any substantive findings on liability because the claims were disposed of following withdrawal after settlement.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment records that terms of settlement had been agreed and that the claimant’s claim for a statutory redundancy payment was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that terms of settlement had been agreed and that the claimant’s breach of contract claim for notice pay was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that terms of settlement had been agreed and that the claimant’s claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that terms of settlement had been agreed and that the claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.