Case 2305136/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Lewsey v Mid Sussex District Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305136/2023
- Decision date
- 16 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Lewsey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South Employment Tribunal by Employment Judge Robinson on 15 and 16 April 2024, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel. The written judgment records two claims: constructive unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction from wages.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s claim for constructive unfair dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed it. It also held that the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was not well-founded and dismissed it. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
The record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The written text therefore contains the outcomes but not the tribunal’s full reasoning or any separate remedy assessment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records that the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; no written reasons are provided in the written record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was not well-founded and dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; no written reasons are provided in the written record. | 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.