Case 2411396/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I P Howarth v Olive Tree Brasserie Stockton H Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2411396/2019
- Decision date
- 17 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I P Howarth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo party attended the hearing before Employment Judge Robinson in Liverpool on 27 November 2019. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued.
The judgment does not set out any substantive findings on liability, evidence, or remedy, and it does not identify the individual causes of action in the body of the decision. The claim types entered here are taken from the case listing context supplied with the decision.
Because the claims were struck out, no award was made and no remedy figures are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that no party attended and that the claimant's claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued. The specific cause of action is not identified in the judgment text; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that no party attended and that the claimant's claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued. The specific cause of action is not identified in the judgment text; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that no party attended and that the claimant's claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued. The specific cause of action is not identified in the judgment text; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
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.