Case 1809011/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr P Warnes, consultant — 2024
- Case reference
- 1809011/2023
- Decision date
- 14 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs C Radley brought a claim against York Hogroast (Trading) Limited for constructive unfair dismissal under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996. The case was heard at Leeds on 11, 12, 13 and 14 November 2024 before Employment Judge James, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr P Warnes, consultant.
The written judgment record states that the claim was not upheld and was dismissed. No written reasons were provided in the published decision, because reasons were given orally at the hearing and the record notes that written reasons will not be supplied unless requested within 14 days.
No remedy was awarded, and the published record does not contain any separate compensation or award figures.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The written judgment record states that the claim for constructive unfair dismissal under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not upheld and was dismissed. No written reasons were provided in the published record. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.