Case 2400867/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr David Rogers - Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400867/2020
- Decision date
- 8 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Patrick T W Costello, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Tetrosyl Limited. The case was heard at Manchester on 26-27 January 2021 before Employment Judge A M Buchanan sitting alone. The tribunal recorded that the claim of unfair dismissal advanced pursuant to sections 94/98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and that the claimant was entitled to a remedy.
The judgment did not determine remedy by way of a monetary award. Instead, it recorded that terms of settlement on remedy had been agreed and noted on the tribunal file. The matter was adjourned until 4:00pm on 17 February 2021 to allow those terms to be carried into effect, and if neither party applied to restore the case for a remedy hearing by then, the question of remedy arising from the judgment would stand dismissed without further order. The written record also notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim under sections 94/98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be well-founded and said the claimant was entitled to a remedy. The judgment did not set out a monetary award because remedy terms had already been agreed and noted on the file. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 94/98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.