Case 2405662/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Smith v Liverpool Food Company Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405662/2019
- Decision date
- 15 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Horne, the tribunal dealt with amendment issues in Mr S Smith's claim against Liverpool Food Company Limited. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a solicitor. The judgment records that the hearing was not a final hearing on liability and that reasons were given orally.
The tribunal held that the claimant's existing complaint that he was required to work excessive weekly hours in breach of regulation 4 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was already within the claim and did not need amendment. It also noted that this part of the case was subject to a separate strike-out warning.
The tribunal refused permission to amend the claim to add a complaint under regulation 11 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 about weekly rest periods. It also refused permission to amend to pursue a bonus-related claim framed as damages for breach of contract or, alternatively, unlawful deduction from wages.
The judgment did not affect the claimant's complaint of unfair constructive dismissal, which was stated to proceed to a final hearing. No merits determination or remedy award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The claimant already had a complaint that he was required to work excessive weekly hours in breach of regulation 4 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal held that he did not need to amend his claim to pursue it, but noted that this part of the claim was subject to a separate strike-out warning. This was a procedural ruling, not a merits determination. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The claimant was required to amend his claim in order to pursue a complaint that the respondent breached regulation 11 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 by failing to provide a weekly rest period. Permission to make that amendment was refused. This was a procedural ruling only. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The claimant was required to amend his claim in order to pursue a complaint arising from the non-payment of his bonus, framed as a claim for damages for breach of contract or alternatively a complaint of unlawful deduction from wages. Permission to make that amendment was refused. The judgment did not determine entitlement to the bonus or any remedy. | Other | — | — |
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.