Case 2201820/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Managed Property Services (UK) Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201820/2019
- Decision date
- 27 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mason Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 23 August 2019 before Employment Judge Mason, the parties informed the tribunal that terms of settlement had been reached and recorded in an ACAS COT3 agreement. The judgment records that the claimant’s claims against the respondent were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The judgment does not contain findings on the merits of the underlying claims. It is a withdrawal judgment only, and no liability determination or remedy award was made. The judgment was sent to the parties on 27 August 2019.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not list the pleaded claims individually; this classification follows the case listing context rather than an express merits determination. The tribunal recorded that the claim(s) were withdrawn after settlement in an ACAS COT3 agreement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment does not list the pleaded claims individually; this classification follows the case listing context rather than an express merits determination. The tribunal recorded that the claim(s) were withdrawn after settlement in an ACAS COT3 agreement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment does not list the pleaded claims individually; this classification follows the case listing context rather than an express merits determination. The tribunal recorded that the claim(s) were withdrawn after settlement in an ACAS COT3 agreement. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.