Case 2303190/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Harrison v The Personal Representatives of the estate of Mr Shaun Van Vuuren (deceased co-owner trading as St Francis Veterinary Surgery) and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303190/2018
- Decision date
- 31 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyde Dated
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of dismissal for asserting a statutory right under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, unlawful deduction of wages for unpaid earnings, and unlawful deduction of wages for unpaid holiday pay carried over from the previous year were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. No merits findings were made on those claims in this judgment.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims of unfair dismissal and damages for wrongful dismissal, said to relate to notice pay, were to proceed to a hearing on 4 January 2021 before a judge sitting alone. This judgment therefore did not decide liability or remedy on those remaining claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint of dismissal for asserting a statutory right under section 104 ERA 1996; dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unlawful deduction of wages in respect of unpaid earnings; dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint of unlawful deduction of wages in respect of unpaid holiday pay carried over from the previous year; dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | 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.