Case 2304260/2018 · Employment Tribunal

In Person, Supported by Miss A Daymond, HR Consultant For v Ms T Hudson, Solicitor — 2019

Case reference: 2304260/2018
Decision date: 2 August 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge C Hyde

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In Person, Supported by Miss A Daymond, HR Consultant For

Respondent

Ms T Hudson, Solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing on 10 July 2019 before Employment Judge C Hyde sitting alone, the tribunal dealt only with the claimant's personal injury and breach of contract/notice pay complaints. The claimant confirmed that he was not pursuing a free-standing personal injury claim and accepted that the tribunal had no power to consider such a claim. The judgment therefore records that claim as withdrawn and dismissed forthwith.

The claimant also told the tribunal that he had already been paid notice money in lieu. On that basis, the tribunal found that there was no notice pay claim to pursue, and that matter was also dismissed on withdrawal forthwith. The judgment states that the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was unaffected by this decision, so it was not determined in this judgment.

The judgment records no monetary award and no liability finding on the unfair dismissal complaint. It is dated 2 August 2019.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Free-standing personal injury claim. The claimant confirmed he was not bringing it and accepted the tribunal had no power to consider it; the judgment records it as withdrawn and dismissed forthwith.	Withdrawn	—	—
Breach of contract	Notice pay / breach of contract claim. The claimant said he had been paid notice money in lieu, so the tribunal recorded that there was no notice pay claim and dismissed it on withdrawal forthwith.	Withdrawn	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.