Case 2402522/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Richards v Premier Cleaning & Transport Services (UK) Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2402522/2024
- Decision date
- 8 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Richards
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal upon withdrawal. It also dismissed the complaints of wrongful dismissal, unpaid holiday pay, unauthorised deductions from wages, and breach of contract by the respondent on the basis that they were not well-founded.
The complaint of harassment related to race was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. In the alternative, the Tribunal found that the harassment complaint was not well-founded. The respondent's complaint of breach of contract by the claimant was also dismissed, and the respondent's application for costs was refused.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal is dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as wrongful dismissal (notice pay) and says it is not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that harassment related to race was out of time, no just and equitable extension was granted, and in the alternative it was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the complaint of unpaid holiday pay is not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of breach of contract by the respondent is not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the respondent's complaint of breach of contract by the claimant is not well-founded. |
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.