Case 2305656/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Peter Lapage v Burgess Hodgson and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305656/2019
- Decision date
- 19 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Peter Lapage
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Michell, sitting alone at Croydon on 17 and 18 March 2021, heard Mr Peter Lapage's claims against Burgess Hodgson LLP and Burgess Hodgson Services Ltd. The written judgment records that the claim against the first respondent was dismissed by consent on withdrawal.
The tribunal then dealt with the complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against the second respondent. It found that both complaints were not well founded and dismissed them. No separate remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
The written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaints of unfair dismissal against the second respondent were found not well founded and dismissed. The claim against the first respondent was dismissed on withdrawal by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaints of wrongful dismissal against the second respondent were found not well founded and dismissed. The claim against the first respondent was dismissed on withdrawal by consent. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.