Case 1600359/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. L. Morgan v National Westminster Bank plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600359/2020
- Decision date
- 3 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. L. Morgan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal granted, by consent, the respondent's application for an extension of time to present its Response. The respondent's Response dated 19 June 2020 and Amended Response dated 24 June 2020 were accepted.
The Tribunal set aside the Rule 21 judgment made by Employment Judge Brace on 1 April 2020. The claimant's claim was then dismissed upon his withdrawal of it.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing, which no party did, or unless a written request was made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claimant's claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment text does not separately describe the underlying claim types; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claimant's claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment text does not separately describe the underlying claim types; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 ETs (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regs 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.