Case 2400231/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hindley v Bellamy’s Fish Bar Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400231/2020
- Decision date
- 23 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
- Venue
- Remotely
- Panel members
- Mr D Mockford, Mr N Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hindley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed as Mr J Hindley v Bellamy’s Fish Bar Ltd and was heard remotely by CVP on 18 and 19 February 2021 before Employment Judge Holmes, with Mr D Mockford and Mr N Williams as lay members. The judgment records that terms of settlement had been agreed between the parties.
By consent, the tribunal stayed the proceedings for implementation of the settlement terms until 2 June 2021. The judgment further records that, with the claimant’s consent, the claims would stand dismissed upon withdrawal by him. No findings on the merits of the equal pay or unlawful deduction from wages claims were made in this consent judgment, and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Resolved by consent; the tribunal stayed the proceedings for implementation of the settlement terms until 2 June 2021, after which the claims would stand dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Settled | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Resolved by consent; the tribunal stayed the proceedings for implementation of the settlement terms until 2 June 2021, after which the claims would stand dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Settled | — | — |
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.