Case 2300883/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Not in attendance For the v Mr D Watkins, Finance Director — 2021
- Case reference
- 2300883/2020
- Decision date
- 27 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrington
- Panel members
- Ms S Lansley, Mr M Cann
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Not in attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South on 27 May 2021 before Employment Judge Harrington sitting with Ms S Lansley and Mr M Cann. The claimant, Mr N Thomas, did not attend. The respondent, RDM UK Limited, was represented by Mr D Watkins, Finance Director.
The tribunal's written record states only that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. It does not set out separate reasoning for each pleaded claim in the short written judgment.
The note to the decision records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written record does not give separate reasons for this claim; the tribunal stated overall that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written record does not give separate reasons for this claim; the tribunal stated overall that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The written record does not give separate reasons for this claim; the tribunal stated overall that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written record does not give separate reasons for this claim; the tribunal stated overall that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. | 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.