Case 2403520/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C McLean v Haywood Roto Moulding Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403520/2022
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C McLean
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr C McLean, did not attend the hearing in Manchester on 4 October 2022. Employment Judge Liz Ord recorded that the claimant's claims were struck out as vexatious because Mr McLean and Haywood Roto Moulding Limited had previously concluded a COT3 agreement with ACAS in respect of those claims, and the respondent had paid the agreed sum within the time limit specified.
The tribunal ordered Mr McLean to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of £2,000 plus VAT of £400, making a total order of £2,400 payable within 28 days. The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refers to the claimant's claims generally, without restating each cause of action. They were struck out as vexatious because the parties had previously concluded a COT3 agreement with ACAS in respect of these claims and the respondent had paid the agreed sum within the time limit. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,400
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.