Case 2301178/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Lewis and 37 Others as set out in the attached Schedule v Swift Airport Parking Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301178/2019
- Decision date
- 10 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freer Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Lewis and 37 Others as set out in the attached Schedule
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the respondent’s response was struck out because it was not being actively pursued. It then awarded the claimants the remedies set out in the attached schedule totals column, as calculated.
The extracted judgment text does not set out the itemised schedule figures or any further substantive reasoning on the underlying claims. On the material provided, the decision is a procedural strike-out followed by an award to the claimants rather than a reasoned merits decision in the text excerpt supplied.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.