Case 2203413/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Loynes v Office for National Statistics Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203413/2021
- Decision date
- 1 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Loynes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter as a remote public hearing by CVP. Evidence was heard from the claimant, Mr A Loynes, and from Ms B Wilson. The Employment Judge recorded that the participants could hear and see the proceedings, that there were no technical difficulties, that recording was prohibited, and that the tribunal was satisfied none of the witnesses was being coached or assisted by an unseen third party.
The only substantive claim identified in the judgment was breach of contract. The tribunal's decision was that the claimant's breach of contract claim failed and was dismissed. The extracted record does not set out further reasons for that conclusion, and the written note states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states only that the claimant's breach of contract claim failed and was dismissed. No written reasons are included in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.