Case 2501164/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Metters v Darlington Railway Hospitality Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501164/2020
- Decision date
- 6 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Metters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 28 October 2020, the tribunal gave Mr C Metters an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why his complaints should not be struck out for having not been actively pursued. He did not make written representations and did not request a hearing.
Mr Metters also did not attend the hearing on 6 November 2020. The judgment therefore records that the complaints were struck out. No merits findings or monetary award were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Included in the claimant's complaints that were struck out because they had not been actively pursued; the judgment does not give a separate merits decision for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Included in the claimant's complaints that were struck out because they had not been actively pursued; the judgment does not give a separate merits decision for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Included in the claimant's complaints that were struck out because they had not been actively pursued; the judgment does not give a separate merits decision for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Included in the claimant's complaints that were struck out because they had not been actively pursued; the judgment does not give a separate merits decision for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Included in the claimant's complaints that were struck out because they had not been actively pursued; the judgment does not give a separate merits decision for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.