Case 1405145/2023 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405145/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
- IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Bristol hearing on 5 January 2024, Employment Judge Cadney sat alone. The Secretary of State, appearing for the second respondent, gave an undertaking that it accepted the claimant was an employee of the first respondent at all material times and would arrange for the appropriate payments to be made to him.
On that basis, the tribunal adjourned the hearing. The judgment states that the claims would be dismissed on deemed withdrawal unless either party applied in writing to restore the case for hearing by 4.00pm on 9 February 2024.
No substantive merits findings, liability findings, or monetary award were recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal did not determine the merits. It recorded the Secretary of State's undertaking that it accepted the claimant was an employee of the first respondent at all material times and would arrange appropriate payments, then adjourned the hearing and said the claims would be dismissed on deemed withdrawal unless either party applied to restore the case by 4.00pm on 9 February 2024. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal did not determine the merits. It recorded the Secretary of State's undertaking that it accepted the claimant was an employee of the first respondent at all material times and would arrange appropriate payments, then adjourned the hearing and said the claims would be dismissed on deemed withdrawal unless either party applied to restore the case by 4.00pm on 9 February 2024. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal did not determine the merits. It recorded the Secretary of State's undertaking that it accepted the claimant was an employee of the first respondent at all material times and would arrange appropriate payments, then adjourned the hearing and said the claims would be dismissed on deemed withdrawal unless either party applied to restore the case by 4.00pm on 9 February 2024. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal did not determine the merits. It recorded the Secretary of State's undertaking that it accepted the claimant was an employee of the first respondent at all material times and would arrange appropriate payments, then adjourned the hearing and said the claims would be dismissed on deemed withdrawal unless either party applied to restore the case by 4.00pm on 9 February 2024. | Other | — | — |
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.