Case 1601522/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Crosby v 13 Market Street Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601522/2020
- Decision date
- 13 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Crosby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a rule 52 withdrawal judgment in case 1601522/2020. The Employment Tribunal recorded that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant.
The judgment does not contain findings on liability, evidence, remedy, or any disputed issues. It is an administrative disposal only, dated 13 August 2020 and sent to the parties on 13 September 2020.
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 withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the supplied case listing category because the short judgment does not set out the pleaded heads in detail. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the supplied case listing category because the short judgment does not set out the pleaded heads in detail. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the supplied case listing category because the short judgment does not set out the pleaded heads in detail. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.