Case 1802660/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hague v Hull College (trading as the Hull College Group) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802660/2020
- Decision date
- 7 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hague
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing by CVP before Employment Judge JM Wade on 7 August 2020. The hearing had originally been listed to determine remedy in undefended claims of wrongful and unfair dismissal, but an application for an extension of time to present a response had been received and the tribunal directed that it be determined first. The judge had an unchallenged witness statement from Ms Murray, the respondent's HR Business Partner, and bundles of papers from both sides.
The only decision recorded in the supplied judgment is a costs order. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,500 plus VAT in respect of costs arising from the respondent's unreasonable conduct of the proceedings. The extract does not record any substantive determination of the underlying wrongful or unfair dismissal claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment records only a costs order of £1,500 plus VAT for the respondent's unreasonable conduct of the proceedings. It does not determine the underlying wrongful or unfair dismissal claims. | Other | — | £1,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,500
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.