Case 2410009/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Yates v SBS Total Facilities Management (in Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410009/2019
- Decision date
- 3 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Yates
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 27 February 2020 before Employment Judge Buzzard sitting alone, the claimant's breach of contract claim about an alleged failure to give notice of termination was withdrawn by the claimant. The tribunal recorded that it was not dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because there was a legitimate reason not to dismiss it and it would be in the interests of justice not to do so.
The tribunal also recorded that all of the claimant's other claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. No monetary remedy was awarded in the judgment, and the written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for alleged failure to give notice of termination of employment. The tribunal recorded that it was withdrawn by the claimant and, under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, was not dismissed because there was a legitimate reason not to dismiss it and it would be in the interests of justice not to do so. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers collectively to all of the claimant's other claims being dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant, but the extracted text does not identify those claims individually. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.