Case 2502239/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Bates v J Mitchinson Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502239/2022
- Decision date
- 10 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Bates
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr S Bates, brought claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against J Mitchinson Ltd. The hearing took place at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 10 March 2023 before Employment Judge Sweeney. The respondent was represented by James Mitchinson, and the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The wrongful dismissal claim, described as a failure to give notice, was found to be well-founded and succeeded. No further reasons are given in the written record because the reasons were provided orally at the hearing.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £461.77 after tax. The written record does not break that figure down into separate heads of loss, and it records no additional remedy components.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim was for failure to give notice and was found well-founded. | Upheld | — | £462 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £462
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.