Case 2413921/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Shead v Stobart Rail Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2413921/2019
- Decision date
- 28 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough DATE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Shead
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records only that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant, Mr M Shead. No substantive findings of fact, liability conclusions, or remedy assessment are set out in the extracted text.
The case is listed against Stobart Rail Limited and the GOV.UK listing categories identify breach of contract, unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and Working Time Regulations issues, but the judgment itself does not particularise separate claim heads or determine them on the merits. On the text supplied, the only disposal is dismissal of the proceedings after withdrawal.
No award was made and no legal test or panel members are identified in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not list individual claim heads; this claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK case listing. The only recorded disposal is that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not list individual claim heads; this claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK case listing. The only recorded disposal is that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not list individual claim heads; this claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK case listing. The only recorded disposal is that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not list individual claim heads; this claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK case listing. The only recorded disposal is that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.