Case 1403721/2021 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v - Mr Mainwaring — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403721/2021
- Decision date
- 7 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Bristol hearing on 20 April 2022, Employment Judge Cadney sat alone and recorded that the parties had reached agreement. The order provided for the claimant's claims to be treated as withdrawn unless either party applied in writing to restore the case for hearing by 4.00 p.m. on 21 June 2022.
The judgment contains no substantive findings on liability or remedy. It is a procedural disposal only, and the text does not distinguish between the underlying pleaded claims beyond recording that they were dismissed on deemed withdrawal if not restored by the deadline.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the parties had reached agreement and that the claimant's claims were to be dismissed on deemed withdrawal unless restoration was sought by the stated deadline. No individual merits findings are given. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the parties had reached agreement and that the claimant's claims were to be dismissed on deemed withdrawal unless restoration was sought by the stated deadline. No individual merits findings are given. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the parties had reached agreement and that the claimant's claims were to be dismissed on deemed withdrawal unless restoration was sought by the stated deadline. No individual merits findings are given. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | This likely captures the written statements element reflected in the listing context. The judgment itself only records disposal by deemed withdrawal following agreement and does not give separate findings. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.