Case 2500202/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hudson v Mobile Auto Shine Limited (Paul Wintersgill) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500202/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hudson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 6 June 2023 before Employment Judge Jeram. The written record notes that neither the claimant nor the respondent attended the hearing. The tribunal recorded that, pursuant to rule 42, the claimant's claims were dismissed.
The written record also states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment states that the claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to rule 42. No separate reasoning or remedy breakdown is provided in the written record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The written judgment states that the claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to rule 42. No separate reasoning or remedy breakdown is provided in the written record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment states that the claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to rule 42. No separate reasoning or remedy breakdown is provided in the written record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment states that the claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to rule 42. No separate reasoning or remedy breakdown is provided in the written record. | 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.