Case 1401299/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401299/2020
- Decision date
- 22 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emerton Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis document is a short written record of a hearing before Employment Judge Emerton sitting alone by telephone at Southampton on 15 September 2020. The parties were the claimant, Mr S R Adlam, appearing in person, and the respondent, Royal Group Management Company Ltd, represented by Ms E Moore of counsel.
The only substantive decision recorded in the text is that no order for costs was made against the claimant. The judgment does not set out any merits findings on the underlying employment claim, and it does not record any financial award.
The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note included in the judgment. It also records that the telephone hearing took place by consent and in accordance with the overriding objective.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The supplied judgment text records only a costs decision: 'No Order for Costs is made against the claimant.' It does not identify any substantive tribunal claim being determined in this document. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.