Case 2205201/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Sivilevicius v Genting Casinos — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205201/2019
- Decision date
- 14 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Snelson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Sivilevicius
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Snelson issued a short rule 52 judgment dated 6 March 2020 in case 2205201/2019 between Mr L Sivilevicius and Genting Casinos UK Limited. The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant.
No reasons on the merits, findings of fact, legal tests, or remedy were set out in the judgment text. The record also states that the judgment was sent to the parties on 14 April 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the case listing because the judgment text does not set out individual claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the case listing because the judgment text does not set out individual claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The claim type is taken from the case listing because the judgment text does not set out individual 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 | Withdrawn | — | — |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.