Case 2403933/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Forrester v SR Development — 2021
- Case reference
- 2403933/2020
- Decision date
- 28 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Forrester
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester by CVP video link on 16 November 2020 before Employment Judge A.M.S. Green. The claimant, Mr D Forrester, appeared in person, and the respondent, SR Development, was represented by Mr R Atherton, one of its directors.
The written judgment states that the claimant's claim for breach of contract/unlawful deduction from wages is dismissed. The extracted record does not separate the outcome between breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages, and it does not set out the oral reasons that were given at the hearing.
No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment. The document also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the extracted text contains only the operative decision and not the tribunal's detailed reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment records that the claimant's claim for breach of contract/unlawful deduction from wages was dismissed. It does not split the outcome between the two heads of claim or give written reasons in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment records that the claimant's claim for breach of contract/unlawful deduction from wages was dismissed. It does not split the outcome between the two heads of claim or give written reasons in the extracted text. | 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.