Case 1401625/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Wilson (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401625/2018
- Decision date
- 7 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Dated
- Panel members
- Mr J Shah, Mr D A Stewart
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr L Wilson (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Southampton on 6 and 7 January 2020, Employment Judge Gray sat with Mr J Shah and Mr D A Stewart. The written judgment records that the case was postponed because the parties had agreed an agreement in principle.
The tribunal ordered that the case would be dismissed automatically in five weeks from 7 January 2020, i.e. by 11 February 2020, unless a party applied in writing to have it restored to the list. The judgment does not record any findings on the substantive claims and does not award any remedy.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment records only that the case was postponed because the parties had agreed an agreement in principle, and that it would be automatically dismissed in five weeks unless a party applied in writing to restore it to the list. No merits determination or remedy was recorded in this judgment. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.