Case 2400766/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrew Hopkins v Mr Peter Swann and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400766/2024
- Decision date
- 26 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Greer
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr Andrew Hopkins
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy judgment dated 13 June 2024, sent to the parties on 26 June 2024, Employment Judge Greer determined the respondent's application for reconsideration without a hearing. The judgment records that the claimant had withdrawn his claim for unpaid wages, his claim for breach of contract, and his claim for unpaid holiday pay.
The respondents also withdrew their contractual counterclaim. The tribunal applied Tribunal Procedure Rules 51 and 52 and dismissed each withdrawn claim.
For the avoidance of doubt, the tribunal stated that all claims had been withdrawn and dismissed, and that the judgment disposed of the proceedings. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant withdrew this claim for unpaid wages. The tribunal recorded that it was dismissed under Tribunal Procedure Rules 51 and 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant withdrew this breach of contract claim. The tribunal recorded that it was dismissed under Tribunal Procedure Rules 51 and 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant withdrew this claim for unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal recorded that it was dismissed under Tribunal Procedure Rules 51 and 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The respondents withdrew their contractual counterclaim. The judgment does not specify a more particular claim type beyond describing it as contractual, and it was dismissed under Tribunal Procedure Rules 51 and 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 rr. 51, 52, 70 and 71
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.