Case 2404796/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Woods v City Care Partnership Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404796/2022
- Decision date
- 2 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Woods
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Manchester on 23, 24, 25 and 26 October 2023 before Employment Judge Johnson. The claimant, Mr D Woods, was unrepresented and the respondent, City Care Partnership Limited, was represented by counsel. The judgment records that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal contrary to section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded. The judgment states that this claim was unsuccessful.
The claimant also brought a complaint seeking payments in respect of unpaid annual leave entitlement, described as holiday pay, under the Working Time Regulations 1998. That complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant on the first day of the final hearing. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal contrary to section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and unsuccessful. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The complaint for payments in respect of unpaid annual leave entitlement under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant on the first day of the final hearing. | 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.