Case 2302077/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Stevenson v Smoque Grill Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302077/2021
- Decision date
- 7 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Clarke Members
- Venue
- London South Tribunal
- Panel members
- Miss N Murphy, Mr D Newlyn
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Stevenson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for final hearing on 7 December 2022 before Employment Judge L Clarke, sitting with lay members Miss N Murphy and Mr D Newlyn. On that date the claimant notified the Tribunal that the parties had reached an agreement and provided a COT-3.
The judgment records that the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, failure to provide written employment particulars, and detriment for making a protected disclosure were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The decision contains no findings on the merits of those claims.
No remedy was awarded and no legal tests were set out in the short judgment. The order is limited to recording the withdrawals following settlement.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant after the parties reached an agreement and a COT-3 was provided. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant after the parties reached an agreement and a COT-3 was provided. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant after the parties reached an agreement and a COT-3 was provided. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide written employment particulars was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant after the parties reached an agreement and a COT-3 was provided. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriment for making a protected disclosure was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant after the parties reached an agreement and a COT-3 was provided. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.