Case 2402951/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Endijs Herings v Geminites Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402951/2019
- Decision date
- 3 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Endijs Herings
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Endijs Herings' claims against Geminites Limited were heard at Liverpool on 2 August 2019 before Employment Judge Buzzard. At the outset of the hearing, the claimant withdrew the claim that the respondent had breached the contract by failing to pay accrued holiday pay on termination, and also withdrew the unlawful deduction from wages claim; both were dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal then found that the claimant had not been constructively dismissed. On that basis, the claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay on dismissal and a redundancy payment were not well-founded and were dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim that the respondent failed to pay accrued holiday pay on termination; dismissed on withdrawal at the outset of the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim that an unlawful deduction from wages was made; withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed at the outset of the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had not been constructively dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay on dismissal failed following the finding that the claimant had not been constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The redundancy payment claim was not well-founded after the finding that the claimant had not been constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.