Case 2411447/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Bates v Flying Firkin Distribution Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411447/2021
- Decision date
- 18 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Bates
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 15 and 16 August 2022, Employment Judge Johnson heard Ms N Bates's claims against Flying Firkin Distribution Limited. The judgment records that the claimant was unrepresented and the respondent was represented by its managing director, Mr G Micheluk. The tribunal gave its judgment orally at the hearing, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The redundancy payment complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant at the final hearing. The tribunal also found that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded and therefore unsuccessful. In addition, the breach of contract complaint was not well founded and unsuccessful. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claimant withdrew the redundancy payment complaint at the final hearing; the judgment records it as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal and states that it was not well founded and unsuccessful. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract complaint was not well founded and therefore unsuccessful. | 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.