Case 1401250/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A S Brar v Maritime and Coastguard Agency — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401250/2019
- Decision date
- 11 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A S Brar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Reed, sitting alone at Southampton on 11 February 2020, decided that Mr A S Brar was not unfairly dismissed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and was not wrongfully dismissed. The written judgment records those dismissal claims as unsuccessful, with oral reasons having been given at the hearing.
The judgment also addressed claims described as breach of contract and unauthorised deductions from wages. The hearing of those claims was postponed on the basis that, if neither party applied to restore them within 28 days, they would be treated for all purposes and without further order as dismissed on withdrawal. No remedy or monetary award was recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The hearing on this claim was postponed; the judgment stated that if neither party applied to restore within 28 days, the claim would be treated as dismissed on withdrawal without further order. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Described in the judgment as unauthorised deductions from wages. The hearing on this claim was postponed; if neither party applied to restore within 28 days, the claim would be treated as dismissed on withdrawal without further order. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was not wrongfully dismissed. | 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.