Case 2402095/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Cumpsty v University of Liverpool and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402095/2019
- Decision date
- 7 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Vincent Ryan
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr J Cumpsty
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the third respondent, Brookson Limited, was dismissed from the proceedings by consent because it had no interest in them. It also records that the claimant's claim concerning unauthorised deductions from wages and/or breach of contract, based on alleged failure to pay pension contributions, was dismissed after the claimant withdrew it.
The only other operative step in the judgment was an amendment by consent to the holiday pay claim so that it included an alleged continuing failure to pay holiday pay up to 31 July 2019. The supplied text does not record any final determination of that holiday pay claim or any monetary award. No remedy is set out in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the claim was dismissed on having been withdrawn by the claimant. The claim wording referred to alleged unauthorised deductions from wages in relation to unpaid pension contributions. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that the claim was dismissed on having been withdrawn by the claimant. The claim wording also referred to an alleged breach of contract in relation to unpaid pension contributions. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.