Case 2414900/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Mann v GSU Landscapes Ltd and 3 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414900/2021
- Decision date
- 21 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr C Mann
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Dunlop at Manchester on 27 May 2022. The claimant’s unauthorised deductions from wages claim was recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal.
The claimant also advanced a discrimination claim on the grounds of marital status. The tribunal struck that claim out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. As that was the only claim that could properly proceed against the individual respondents, Donna Helm, Dominic Munro and Lee Rigby were removed from the proceedings.
The claimant’s unfair (constructive) dismissal claim was not determined at this hearing. The tribunal directed that it would proceed to a final hearing against the first respondent only, GSU Landscapes Ltd, on dates already notified to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The tribunal struck out the claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.