Case 2303149/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Bennett v Countrywide Estate Agents Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303149/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Bennett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent's name by consent from 'Hamptons' to Countrywide Estate Agents Limited. At a public preliminary hearing on 10 January 2024, the claimant's complaints for notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant, so no monetary award was made on those complaints.
The claimant's negligent misrepresentation complaint was struck out because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it, or alternatively because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The employer's contract claim was allowed to proceed, but the respondent was ordered to write to the tribunal and the claimant by 24 January 2024 to confirm whether it wished to pursue that claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint for notice pay was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant at the public preliminary hearing on 10 January 2024. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint for holiday pay was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant at the public preliminary hearing on 10 January 2024. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint for arrears of pay was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant at the public preliminary hearing on 10 January 2024. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Complaint based on negligent misrepresentation was struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it, or alternatively because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.