Case 1402538/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Potts v Commercial IT Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402538/2020
- Decision date
- 17 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Potts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr N Potts brought breach of contract claims against Commercial IT Services Limited. The case was heard at Bristol Employment Tribunal on 5 February 2021 by Cloud Video Platform before Employment Judge J Bax, with Mr Potts appearing in person and Miss D Grennan appearing for the respondent.
The tribunal recorded that the breach of contract claim for failing to follow the disciplinary process was dismissed following a withdrawal by the Claimant. It also dismissed the separate breach of contract claim relating to bonus payments. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment, and the note at the end states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract claim for failing to follow the disciplinary process was dismissed following a withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim in relation to bonus payments was 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.