Case 1601778/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Gould v R Lewis & Co (UK) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601778/2021
- Decision date
- 18 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Gould
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Cardiff on 5-6 July 2022, Employment Judge C Sharp sitting alone recorded the disposal of four claims brought by Mr J Gould against R Lewis & Co (UK) Ltd. The judgment states that the breach of contract claim for notice pay/wrongful dismissal and the claim for accrued unpaid annual leave were both withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal further recorded that the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was not well-founded and dismissed, and that the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was also not well-founded and dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons were not provided in the judgment record unless requested in time. No monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records this claim as 'withdrawn and is dismissed'; it related to notice pay/wrongful dismissal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records this claim for accrued unpaid annual leave at termination as 'withdrawn and is dismissed'. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that this claim was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 and states that it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.