Case 2306242/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Smith v Elmbridge Cleaning Contracts Ltd Sitting At: London South — 2023
- Case reference
- 2306242/2020
- Decision date
- 7 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr B Smith brought claims of unfair dismissal, age discrimination and unpaid monies against Elmbridge Cleaning Contracts Ltd. At a hearing on 9 January 2023, Employment Judge Beale noted that the parties were in late-stage settlement discussions and that the Respondent's position was that sums of money had already been paid to the Claimant. Orders were made for the parties to correspond and for the Tribunal to be updated once the position was clarified.
On 16 January 2023, the Respondent emailed the Tribunal and said it had paid £236.34 to Mr B Smith and informed ACAS, stating that it considered the case settled. By the hearing on 7 September 2023, neither party attended. Employment Judge K Andrews concluded, taking account of the Respondent's statement about payment, the absence of any communication from the Claimant, and his non-attendance, that the Claimant was not actively pursuing the claim.
The judgment therefore dismissed the case. It does not contain findings on the merits of the unfair dismissal, age discrimination or unpaid monies claims, and it records no tribunal-awarded remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that this claim was dismissed because it was not being actively pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment records that the age discrimination claim was dismissed because it was not being actively pursued. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Other | The judgment refers only to a claim for 'unpaid monies' and does not identify a more specific legal category. | 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.