Case 2409656/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jonathan Gately v Alpine Vending Company Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409656/2023
- Decision date
- 19 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jonathan Gately
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was dealt with at a remote hearing before Employment Judge G Tobin sitting alone on 14 March 2024. The claimant, Mr Jonathan Gately, attended in person with his father-in-law; the respondent, Alpine Vending Company Limited, was represented by its Managing Director. The judgment records that the hearing was remote by video and that an in-person hearing was not held because the matter was listed for a case management hearing and the relevant matters could be determined remotely.
The judgment does not contain substantive findings on liability for the pleaded employment claims. Instead, it records that the parties had reached a settlement. On that basis, the tribunal ordered that the respondent pay the claimant £1,860.00 within 28 days of the hearing date, and stated that proceedings were concluded.
The accompanying notice sets out the tribunal interest information, including that the relevant decision day was 18 March 2024, the calculation day was 19 March 2024, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% if the sum remained unpaid after 14 days. No separate award breakdown, factual findings, or legal tests are recorded in the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the parties agreed settlement and that the respondent would pay the claimant £1,860.00 within 28 days. No substantive liability findings are recorded in the judgment. | Settled | — | £1,860 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,860
- 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.