Case 2303523/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Platts-Mills — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303523/2021
- Decision date
- 25 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written record states that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. No separate reasons are included in the extracted text, because the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing and noted that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
On the face of the published record, the tribunal therefore made no award. The extracted text does not contain any findings allocating liability or remedy between the individual claims, and it does not identify any further factual or legal analysis beyond the dismissal of the claims as a whole.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. The extracted text does not set out the individual pleaded issues, so this claim type is taken from the case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. The extracted text does not set out the individual pleaded issues, so this claim type is taken from the case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. The extracted text does not set out the individual pleaded issues, so this claim type is taken from the case listing. | 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.