Case 1404949/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Mr R Whalley, Solicitor For the Second and Fourth Respondents: Mr M Welsh, Solicitor For the Third Respondent: Miss J Walker, Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404949/2020
- Decision date
- 14 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment by consent in the Employment Tribunal at Plymouth on 29 September 2021 before Employment Judge N J Roper. The claimant, Mr Z McKinnon, appeared in person. The respondents were Synergy CRS Ltd, E-Payslip Now Ltd, Healthcare at Home Limited, and Polarvoltine Ltd.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s claims for race discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The judgment does not contain findings on the merits of either claim.
The tribunal also ordered the respondents to pay the claimant £500.00 within 14 days from the date the judgment was sent to the parties. The judgment does not split that sum between the claims or explain the basis for the payment in substantive reasons.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant in a judgment by consent. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant in a judgment by consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.