Case 1406342/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Korreman v Exmoor Gate Ltd t/a Raleghs Cross Inn and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1406342/2019
- Decision date
- 15 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr A Korreman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Bristol on 15 April 2020 before Employment Judge Gray, the claimant orally withdrew his complaints for a redundancy payment and indirect race discrimination against all three respondents. He also withdrew his complaints of unfair dismissal, notice pay, arrears of pay and other payments against the second and third respondents.
The judgment records that those complaints were dismissed by consent. No merits findings, legal reasoning, or remedy award are set out in the written record, and the note states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claimant orally withdrew the redundancy payment complaint; the judgment records that it was dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment describes this as indirect race discrimination. It was orally withdrawn and dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant orally withdrew the unfair dismissal complaint during the preliminary hearing, and it was dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment groups notice pay, arrears of pay and other payments together and dismisses those complaints by consent; it does not split the wage claims further. | 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.