Case 2304059/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D. Wilson v Amber Car Services — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304059/2022
- Decision date
- 4 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D. Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case, heard at London South via CVP on 4 May 2022, was before Employment Judge Sudra. The claimant, Mr D. Wilson, did not attend. The respondent, Amber Car Services, was represented by Mr P. Tapsell of counsel.
The written judgment states only that, upon hearing evidence, the claimant’s claims against the respondent were dismissed. The record does not set out separate findings for individual heads of claim, nor does it record any monetary award.
The note to the judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The written record therefore preserves the outcome only, not the tribunal’s detailed reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not break down the dismissal by claim; the claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not break down the dismissal by claim; the claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not break down the dismissal by claim; the claim type is taken from the case listing context. | 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.