Case 2302267/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Passant v 1) Chris Veasey 2) Daniel Howes — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302267/2019
- Decision date
- 10 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Passant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment for case 2302267/2019 records only that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant. No substantive determination of the underlying allegations is set out in the extracted text.
The case heading names Chris Veasey and Daniel Howes as Respondents, and the Gov.uk listing identifies the matter as including breach of contract, unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and Working Time Regulations issues. The judgment itself does not separate those heads further or record any findings on liability.
Because the claim was withdrawn, the tribunal did not record any remedy, award, or legal reasoning beyond dismissal of the proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant; no separate findings are given on this head. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant; no separate findings are given on this head. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant; no separate findings are given on this head. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant; no separate findings are given on this head. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.