Case 2306138/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Charters-Rowe v Cementaid (UK) Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306138/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCann Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Charters-Rowe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr G Charters-Rowe, brought claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against Cementaid (UK) Ltd. The case was heard at London South Employment Tribunal sitting at Croydon by video hearing on 25 and 26 July and 28 October 2024 before Employment Judge McCann. The judgment records that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Marshall, Counsel.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. It also held that the wrongful dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. No monetary award is recorded in the written decision extract.
The record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days. The extracted text therefore does not set out the tribunal's detailed factual or legal reasoning for the dismissals.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim dismissed. The extracted record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested, so the tribunal's substantive reasoning is not set out in the text provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim dismissed. The extracted record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested, so the tribunal's substantive reasoning is not set out in the text provided. | 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.