Case 2417079/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jamie Rakha v Tetrosyl Ltd FINAL HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 2417079/2019
- Decision date
- 5 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jamie Rakha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing was listed for 1 March 2021 in Manchester by video, but before the hearing commenced the claimant informed the Tribunal that a consent order had been sent overnight and the respondent's representative confirmed that a settlement had been agreed on the basis of a draft consent order. The Tribunal then adopted and adapted the draft consent order in the terms recorded in the judgment.
The judgment is a judgment by consent rather than a determination of liability. It records that the claim is treated as withdrawn by the claimant and that it will be treated as dismissed upon withdrawal without further order unless the claimant applies to the Tribunal on or before 22 March 2021 to say that the settlement terms have not been complied with.
No liability findings, legal tests, or monetary remedy were determined in the judgment. The attendance of the parties or their representatives was therefore not required once settlement had been confirmed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | By consent, after the parties notified the Tribunal that settlement had been agreed on terms in a draft consent order. The judgment states that the claim is treated as withdrawn by the claimant and will be treated as dismissed upon withdrawal without further order unless the claimant applies by 22 March 2021 to say the settlement terms have not been complied with. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.