Case 1405861/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. R. Russell v The Management Committee of Southampton Business Against Crime (such officers as appointed at the relevant time) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1405861/2020
- Decision date
- 11 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lang Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. R. Russell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Lang heard the case at Southampton on 3 and 4 October 2022. The judgment records that the correct identity of the respondent was The Management Committee of Southampton Business Against Crime (such officers as appointed at the relevant time). It also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. It further recorded that the claimant withdrew his claims for a redundancy payment, notice pay, outstanding holiday pay, and arrears of pay, and that those claims were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Judgment records this claim as withdrawn and therefore dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was withdrawn and therefore dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for outstanding holiday pay was withdrawn and therefore dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of pay was withdrawn and therefore dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.