Case 1601017/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Kirkpatrick v RRC Crane Hire Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601017/2020
- Decision date
- 16 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Powell Dated
- Venue
- by Video Link
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Kirkpatrick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge R F Powell by video link on 15 December 2020. Mr R Kirkpatrick appeared in person and RRC Crane Hire Limited was represented by Ms C Jennings of Counsel.
The tribunal disposed of three breach of contract claims. The claim for breach of contract in respect of a failure to pay contractual notice was dismissed upon withdrawal. The claim for breach of contract in respect of a contractual bonus was found not well founded and dismissed.
The third claim, for breach of contract in respect of a failure to reimburse the claimant for his prior tax liability, was also found not well founded and dismissed. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim for breach of contract in respect of a failure to pay contractual notice was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim for breach of contract in respect of a contractual bonus was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim for breach of contract in respect of a failure to reimburse the claimant for his prior tax liability was found not well founded and dismissed. | 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.