Case 1404881/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Paul Grant First v Flowtech Fluidpower plc Second Respondent: Fluidpower Group Services UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404881/2021
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
- Venue
- Bristol ET via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Paul Grant First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Bristol ET via CVP on 16 September 2022, before Employment Judge G. King, the tribunal recorded that the First Respondent did not employ Mr Paul Grant. On that basis, the claim against the First Respondent was dismissed. The short-form judgment does not give a separate explanation beyond that finding, and notes that oral reasons had been given at the hearing.
The tribunal also dismissed the Claimant’s claim for wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) against the Second Respondent, Fluidpower Group Services UK Ltd, holding that it was not well founded. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states only that the First Respondent did not employ the Claimant and dismisses the claim against it; it does not set out a separate legal label for that claim in the short-form record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment says the Claimant’s claim for wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) against the Second Respondent was not well founded and 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.