Case 1401181/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Mannan v The Food Service Centre Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401181/2019
- Decision date
- 16 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Mannan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the Claimant withdrew the claims of unfair dismissal, notice pay/unpaid wages, breach of contract concerning payment for the parcel shelf, and redundancy payment. The operative order states that those claims were dismissed upon withdrawal, and the judgment contains no merits findings on liability or any monetary award.
The judgment also records that the claim concerning an inaccurate reference was withdrawn by the Claimant and, pursuant to rule 52(a), was not dismissed. The Respondent's contract claim was withdrawn by the Respondent and dismissed upon withdrawal. No remedy was ordered.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim of unfair dismissal was withdrawn by the Claimant and the judgment states that it was dismissed upon that withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim described as notice pay/unpaid wages was withdrawn by the Claimant and the judgment states that it was dismissed upon that withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim concerning payment for the parcel shelf was withdrawn by the Claimant and the judgment states that it was dismissed upon that withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The redundancy payment claim was withdrawn by the Claimant and the judgment states that it was dismissed upon that withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claim concerning an inaccurate reference was withdrawn by the Claimant. The judgment states that it was not dismissed pursuant to rule 52(a). | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Respondent's contract claim was withdrawn by the Respondent and the judgment states that it was dismissed upon that withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.