Case 1600767/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Arapis v British Gas Trading Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600767/2019
- Decision date
- 19 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Arapis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Cardiff before Employment Judge Harfield alone, heard the case over 9 to 13 March 2020. The claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The written judgment records that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. It also records that the complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract were not well founded and were dismissed.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No written reasons or remedy findings are included in the supplied written record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records the complaint as constructive unfair dismissal and says it was not well founded and dismissed. Oral reasons were given; no written reasons are included in the supplied judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records the complaint as unauthorised deduction from wages and says it was not well founded and dismissed. Oral reasons were given; no written reasons are included in the supplied judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records the complaint as breach of contract and says it was not well founded and dismissed. Oral reasons were given; no written reasons are included in the supplied judgment text. | 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.