Case 2500757/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. S. Hallway v North East Powder Coatings Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500757/2024
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. S. Hallway
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr S. Hallway, brought a complaint that he had been constructively unfairly dismissed by North East Powder Coatings Limited. The hearing took place on 20 August 2024 at The Newcastle Civil and Family Courts and Tribunal Centre via CVP, before Employment Judge T.R. Smith, with Mr Hallway appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr Young, a director.
The tribunal recorded that the complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. The written record contains only the outcome and does not set out any factual findings or legal reasoning beyond that result.
The notes state that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days. The written decision is dated 30 September 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint that he was constructively unfairly dismissed was not well founded and was dismissed. The written record does not set out reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.