Case 2418519/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Freeman v Westgrove Support Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2418519/2020
- Decision date
- 22 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Freeman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote hearing by CVP before Employment Judge Dunlop on 18 January 2021. The tribunal considered the claimant's application for interim relief in relation to his s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 claim and refused it because it did not appear likely that, on determining that complaint, the tribunal would find that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the reason specified in s.103A.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment states that the withdrawal did not affect the claimant's other claims, including his automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A. No liability finding or monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal stated that this withdrawal did not affect the claimant's other claims, including his automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.