Case 2201462/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Innvotec Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201462/2019
- Decision date
- 15 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge DEOL Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 2 October 2019 at the London Central Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Deol accepted the Respondent's application for its response to be admitted out of time. The tribunal also recorded that the Claimant's claims for race discrimination, sex discrimination, and equal pay were withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal.
The case management order states that the Claimant continued to pursue claims for unfair dismissal, unpaid wages for part of February 2019 (£4,000), unpaid notice pay for three months (£16,500), holiday pay accrued between June 2018 and 31 May 2019, breach of contract for unpaid employer pension contributions, and breach of contract based on an alleged verbal contract for 15% of annual pay. The Respondent was said to resist the unfair dismissal, holiday pay, and verbal contract claims, while the wage, notice pay, and pension contribution items were likely to be conceded.
The order listed the remaining matters for a full merits hearing and set directions for disclosure, a schedule of loss, witness statements, and a trial bundle. No merits decision was made in this document on the claims that remained live.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Recorded by the tribunal as dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded by the tribunal as dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Equal pay | Recorded by the tribunal as dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.