Case 1600538/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Duffy v Acorn Recruitment Ltd and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600538/2019
- Decision date
- 15 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Duffy
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a short withdrawal order. Employment Judge R Brace recorded that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. No substantive findings on liability were made, and the judgment does not record any remedy or monetary award.
The extracted text identifies the respondents as Acorn Recruitment Ltd and Tata Steel UK Limited, and the judgment was sent to the parties on 15 October 2019 after being signed on 14 October 2019. Beyond the dismissal on withdrawal, no further reasoning or claim-by-claim determination appears in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The extracted text does not separately list this claim, but the case context identifies breach of contract as one of the pleaded categories. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The extracted text does not separately list this claim, but the case context identifies public interest disclosure / whistleblowing as one of the pleaded categories. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The extracted text does not separately list this claim, but the case context identifies unfair dismissal as one of the pleaded categories. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.