Case 1801230/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Thompson v South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue — 2021
- Case reference
- 1801230/2020
- Decision date
- 23 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Bright made a judgment on withdrawal under rule 52. The complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal in the claimant's Retained role were dismissed after the claimant withdrew them, and the Judge was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to do so.
The complaints of breach of contract, covering notice pay and disciplinary action in the claimant's wholetime role, and unauthorised deduction from wages relating to a CPD payment, were also withdrawn. However, the Judge directed that no judgment dismissing those complaints should be issued because the claimant had said at the time of withdrawal that he wished to reserve the right to bring a further claim, and the Judge was satisfied there was a legitimate reason for doing so.
The judgment recorded that claim number 1801230/2021 was therefore at an end. No remedy was awarded or quantified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint related to the claimant's Retained role and was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint related to the claimant's Retained role and was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This covered notice pay and taking disciplinary action in the claimant's wholetime role; the Judge directed that no judgment dismissing the complaint be issued. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This related to the CPD payment; the Judge directed that no judgment dismissing the complaint be issued. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52
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.