Case 1600353/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Anthony O’Sullivan v Caerphilly County Borough Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600353/2020
- Decision date
- 14 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Anthony O’Sullivan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cardiff on 8 April 2020 before Regional Employment Judge B J Clarke. With the consent of both parties and under Rule 64 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal dismissed upon withdrawal two complaints: the claimant’s breach of contract complaint, but only so far as it alleged that the respondent had breached contract by declining to reimburse legal fees, and the claimant’s complaint of sex discrimination.
The judgment makes clear that those dismissals were limited to those specific complaints and that it did not determine the claimant’s other pleaded matters. The tribunal stated that it did not affect the remaining breach of contract complaints concerning the "approved salary" for chief executives, the "national pay award" and returning officer fees, nor the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment also records the claimant’s intention to apply to amend his claim to include unpaid holiday pay. Those outstanding matters were said to be the subject of discussion and directions in a separate case management order. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed upon withdrawal, but only insofar as it related to the contention that the respondent acted in breach of contract by declining to reimburse legal fees. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by consent under Rule 64. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 64 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.