Case 2202281/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Haines v Neil Jackson and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202281/2019
- Decision date
- 13 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D Haines
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in London Central on 9 January 2020 before Employment Judge Davidson, the claimant withdrew his complaint against the first respondent. The tribunal therefore dismissed that complaint on withdrawal, and the first respondent reserved his position on costs arising from the late withdrawal until the final hearing.
The claimant's complaint against the second respondent was allowed to proceed. The second respondent's application for a deposit order was refused. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant's complaint against the first respondent was dismissed following withdrawal. The extracted text does not specify the underlying jurisdiction. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's complaint against the second respondent was allowed to proceed at the preliminary hearing. The substantive claim was not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
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.