Case 1401785/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Chaffe v Peach Café Limited (t/a The Woods) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401785/2019
- Decision date
- 20 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emerton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Chaffe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a short Rule 52 decision dated 20 January 2020 in which Employment Judge Emerton recorded that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant, Mr D Chaffe, against Peach Café Limited (t/a The Woods). No findings on liability, facts in dispute, or legal tests were recorded in the extracted text.
Because the claim was withdrawn, the tribunal did not determine the merits of the underlying complaints. No remedy, compensation, or declaration was awarded, and the judgment does not identify any split between claims or any separate conclusions on the listed categories of complaint.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; it does not record any merits determination on this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Parental leave | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; it does not record any merits determination on this claim. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; it does not record any merits determination on this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant; it does not record any merits determination on this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.