Case 2200840/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Neal and others (see schedule) v Pinnacle Housing Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 2200840/2017
- Decision date
- 10 August 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baron
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Neal and others (see schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the Claimants' breach of contract claims in these proceedings were dismissed under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 following a withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant. The tribunal did not record any substantive determination on liability for that claim in this judgment.
The judgment also states that the remaining claims would proceed to a hearing. No remedy figures were recorded, and no discrimination or other protected-characteristic issues are mentioned in the text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract claims were dismissed under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 following a withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.