Case 2301882/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Conroy v K & K Consult Limited. — 2017
- Case reference
- 2301882/2017
- Decision date
- 6 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Conroy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 6 September 2017, Employment Judge Martin Date entered a Rule 21 judgment stating that the claims succeed. The extracted text does not set out the underlying facts, reasons, or a claim-by-claim liability analysis.
The judgment records that the remedy would be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. It also states that the hearing listed on 10 November 2017 was converted to a remedy hearing for three hours. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text supplied here.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment text states only that 'The claims succeed' and does not itemise separate findings for this head of claim; this classification is aligned to the case listing context. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The extracted judgment text states only that 'The claims succeed' and does not itemise separate findings for this head of claim; this classification is aligned to the case listing context. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment text states only that 'The claims succeed' and does not itemise separate findings for this head of claim; this classification is aligned to the case listing context. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment text states only that 'The claims succeed' and does not itemise separate findings for this head of claim; this classification is aligned to the case listing context. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted judgment text states only that 'The claims succeed' and does not itemise separate findings for this head of claim; this classification is aligned to the case listing context. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.