Case 1600803/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Hunter-Clarke v Neil Hamilton AM and 3 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600803/2018
- Decision date
- 14 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore Representation
Parties
5 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short consent judgment before Employment Judge Moore. It recorded that the claimant, Mr R Hunter-Clarke, had brought claims against multiple respondents, including Neil Hamilton AM, a group of AM respondents, the National Assembly for Wales Commission, and Caroline Jones AM.
The tribunal stated that the claimant’s claims against Caroline Jones AM, Michelle Brown AM, Gareth Bennett AM and David Rowlands AM of the second respondent, together with the third and fourth respondent, were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. It made no findings on the merits of those claims and ordered no costs against the claimant by consent.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant’s claims against the first respondent would continue at the preliminary hearing listed for 5 June 2019. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the legal basis of the claims. It records that the claims against Caroline Jones AM, Michelle Brown AM, Gareth Bennett AM and David Rowlands AM of the second respondent, and the third and fourth respondent, were dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.