Case 1601962/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R. Haines v Panasonic Manufacturing (UK) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601962/2019
- Decision date
- 14 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R. Haines
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Wrexham on 11 May 2020 before Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan. The judgment records that the claims were withdrawn by the claimant and therefore dismissed. The dismissed claims were wrongful dismissal/breach of contract (notice), unauthorised deductions from wages, and non-payment of holiday pay.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision. No separate remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment described this claim as 'Wrongful Dismissal/Breach of contract (Notice)' and recorded that it had been withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded as 'Unauthorised deductions from wages'; dismissed because the claimant withdrew it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded as 'Non-payment of holiday pay'; dismissed because the claimant withdrew it. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.