Case 1602557/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. C. Woolley v Motorline Ltd. LIABILITY — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602557/2020
- Decision date
- 2 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. C. Woolley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a liability judgment under Rule 21 in which Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan found that Mr C. Woolley was unfairly dismissed by Motorline Ltd on 14 August 2020. The judgment records that the respondent was liable, but it does not set out detailed findings on the dismissal circumstances in the extracted text provided.
Remedy was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal directed that the sum to be awarded to the claimant would be assessed at a later remedy hearing, to be listed by video unless the claimant objected within 7 days. The time estimate for that hearing was 1 hour.
The claimant was ordered to send the tribunal a written calculation of the financial claim he was making and a typed witness statement explaining the losses attributable to the dismissal, his efforts to mitigate loss, and any other information the tribunal should take into account when calculating any award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability judgment under Rule 21. The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 14 August 2020; the amount to be awarded was left to a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.