Case 2201102/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ward v Storetech Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201102/2019
- Decision date
- 19 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short rule 52 withdrawal judgment in case 2201102/2019, with Employment Judge Wade recording only that the proceedings between Mr A Ward and Storetech Ltd were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant.
The judgment does not set out any findings on liability, the merits of the underlying complaints, remedies, legal tests, or panel members. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the proceedings are dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the supplied listing category because the short judgment text does not separately describe the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the proceedings are dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the supplied listing category because the short judgment text does not separately describe the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the proceedings are dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the supplied listing category because the short judgment text does not separately describe the pleaded claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.