Case 1406157/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Whitecross v 1 The Bar Company Cheltenham Ltd 2 Lounge Seventy Two Ltd 3 Bentley’s Bar and Kitchen Ltd Heard by Cloud Video — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406157/2020
- Decision date
- 13 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Whitecross
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter by Cloud Video on 1 October 2021 before Employment Judge Reed. The claimant, Mr A Whitecross, did not attend. The respondent was represented by Mr P Hatfield, General Manager.
The written judgment records a single outcome: in the absence of the claimant, his claim was dismissed. No separate reasons are set out in the written record beyond that dispositive order.
The tribunal noted that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or by written request within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment states only that, in the absence of the claimant, his claim is dismissed. It does not break out separate heads of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment states only that, in the absence of the claimant, his claim is dismissed. It does not break out separate heads of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Mapped to the written-statements element reflected in the case listing. The written judgment itself does not separate this head of claim from the others. | 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.