Case 1406667/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Mr Delaney, Solicitor CONSENT — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406667/2020
- Decision date
- 4 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment in Ms M Koutsoumanis v RSPCA, heard by telephone at Exeter on 26 August 2021 before Employment Judge Smail. The tribunal ordered that if the respondent paid the claimant £1,500 within 14 days from the date the judgment was sent, the claim would be dismissed upon withdrawal after 28 days. The sum was to be assumed paid in time unless the claimant notified the tribunal between days 14 and 28.
The judgment records no findings on liability or the merits of the underlying claims, and it does not allocate the agreed sum between individual heads of claim. It also cites no legal tests or statutory provisions. The proceedings were therefore disposed of on agreed terms only.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Consent judgment; the judgment does not specify the legal basis for this claim. The agreed payment is not allocated to individual claim types. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Consent judgment. The agreed payment is not allocated to individual claim types. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Consent judgment. The agreed payment is not allocated to individual claim types. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Consent judgment. The agreed payment is not allocated to individual claim types. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,500
- 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.