Case 1400909/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C J Knight v Deming Car Services (Basingstoke) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400909/2019
- Decision date
- 23 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C J Knight
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a telephone hearing in Bristol on 23 October 2019 before Employment Judge Midgley, the tribunal recorded that Mr C J Knight’s claims against Deming Car Services (Basingstoke) Limited under s.45A and s.47B ERA 1996, s.103A and s.104 ERA 1996, and breach of Regulations 10 and 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 were before it. The written judgment states that the claimant withdrew those claims.
The tribunal therefore dismissed each claim on withdrawal. No substantive findings on liability or remedy are recorded in the written decision, and the note says reasons were given orally with written reasons to be provided only if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Unlawful detriment under s.45A ERA 1996; withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Unlawful detriment under s.47B ERA 1996; withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996; withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.104 ERA 1996; withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Breach of Regulations 10 and 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.