Case 1807206/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Yates v Mr N McLoud and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1807206/2020
- Decision date
- 17 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs L Yates
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a short disposal order rather than a merits decision. The claims against the First Respondent, Mr N McLoud, were dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant, Mrs L Yates.
As against Handy Little Modules Ltd, the claims for unauthorised deduction from wages were also dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on liability, remedy, or compensation for those withdrawn claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment dismisses the claims against the First Respondent on withdrawal by the Claimant. The judgment does not specify the underlying claim type(s) for those claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claims for unauthorised deduction from wages against the Second Respondent were dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The remaining claims against the Second Respondent were struck out because they were not being actively pursued. The judgment does not specify the remaining claim type(s). | Struck out | — | — |
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.