Case 2302289/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Leung v Redhill Aircraft Maintenance & Aircraft Leasing Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302289/2022
- Decision date
- 14 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Leung
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that all of the claimant's claims in these proceedings had been withdrawn by the claimant. On that basis, Employment Judge Klimov dismissed the claims pursuant to Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The order also records that there would be no costs order against either party. The extracted text does not set out any merits findings, evidence, or separate remedy assessment beyond the procedural dismissal following withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that all of the claimant's claims in these proceedings had been withdrawn by the claimant and were dismissed pursuant to Rule 52; the extracted text does not set out separate claim particulars. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that all of the claimant's claims in these proceedings had been withdrawn by the claimant and were dismissed pursuant to Rule 52; the extracted text does not set out separate claim particulars. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Used for the written pay statement aspect reflected in the case listing; the judgment itself only states that all claims were withdrawn and dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52
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.