Case 2301893/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Ebeling v Pacific Support Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301893/2022
- Decision date
- 10 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swaffer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Ebeling
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr P Ebeling, brought a breach of contract claim against Pacific Support Services Ltd. At the hearing on 10 November 2022, Employment Judge Swaffer recorded that the respondent's name was amended to Pacific Support Services Ltd under Rule 12(2)(A) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal held that the breach of contract claim was not well founded and dismissed it. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no written reasons were provided unless requested within 14 days.
The respondent's counterclaim had already been dismissed on 25 October 2022 pursuant to Rule 27 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant's breach of contract claim was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed on 25 October 2022 pursuant to Rule 27 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013; the extracted text does not specify the counterclaim's substantive basis. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.